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>  
> - 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
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 13:00:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:25:44 UTC