W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

Re: ISSUE-27: rel-ownership - Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:59:44 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u79vpuge64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:55:10 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:
> - One of the reasons it may not have been raised is that link relation  
> types do not *need* to be registered; you can always use a URI you  
> control (that would address the vendor namespace, for instance).

To be frank, only a few would mint URLs. The rest will keep continue doing  
what they always did, and rightly so. Using URLs as rel values would be  
extremely cumbersome.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 13:00:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:14 UTC