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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:09:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4B7BEA81.5060302@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 17.02.2010 13:59, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> 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.

I agree that many people ignore registries, no matter how simple they 
are. Why? Because they can get away with it.

For those who actually do care, I think using something in a vendor 
namespace is *very* similar* to using a URI.

See, for instance, 
<http://docs.oasis-open.org/cmis/CMIS/v1.0/cd06/cmis-spec-v1.0.html#_Toc243905525>.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 13:10:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:02 GMT