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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:07:18 +1100
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EAF23E36-18C8-4DDB-BE0D-107058518A53@mnot.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
I'm adding:

> Note that relation types MAY be registered by third parties, if the Designated Expert determines that the relation type is widely deployed, and the party or parties responsible for introducing or implementing the relation type have failed to register it in a timely manner.

Workable?


On 18/02/2010, at 12:24 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> 
> On Feb 17, 2010, at 5:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
>> On 17.02.2010 14:04, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> 
>>> That would address vendor namespaces, but not registration of rel values
>>> you find arleady in active use by third parties.
>> 
>> Yes, that's what I just said :-).
> 
> The latter is more what I am concerned about, since people make up rel values all the time without asking anyone's permission.
> 
>> 
>>>> That's not entirely true, for instance the requirements for
>>>> provisional URI schemes are:
>>>> 
>>>> 3. Guidelines for Provisional URI Scheme Registration
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> While the guidelines in Section 2 are REQUIRED for permanent
>>>> registration, they are RECOMMENDED for provisional registration. For
>>>> a provisional registration, the following are REQUIRED:
>>> 
>>> RECOMMENDED is a lower level of requirement than REQUIRED (a SHOULD, not
>>> a MUST). I have no problem with a universal SHOULD-level requirement.
>>> It's just not clear to me that when you can't meet it, the rel value
>>> should remain completely unregistered.
>> 
>> I'm aware of that. I was just trying to point out that "provisional" doesn't mean "anything goes".
> 
> No one said it did.
> 
>> 
>>>> o The scheme name meets the syntactic requirements of Section 2.8.
>>>> o There is not already an entry with the same URI scheme name. (In
>>>> the unfortunate case that there are multiple, different uses of
>>>> the same scheme name, the IESG may approve a request to modify an
>>>> existing entry to note the separate use.)
>>>> o Contact information identifying the person supplying the
>>>> registration is included. Previously unregistered URI schemes
>>>> discovered in use may be registered by third parties on behalf of
>>>> those who created the URI scheme; in this case, both the
>>>> registering party and the scheme creator SHOULD be identified.
>>> 
>>> This bullet is exactly the kind of thing I think ought to be allowed,
>>> but effectively is not (unless you are able to reverse engineer a spec
>>> for the rel value).
>> 
>> I don't see how this is disallowed for "rel". Write a spec, and request registration. What you can't do is specify somebody else as relation creator without their agreement.
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea to leave values in common use completely undocumented in the registry. It means that a good samaritan who finds someone else's unregistered header cannot ensure that it is documented without writing a full specification that will survive formal review.
> 
> Like I said, I'm not going to object on this basis, I was just curious to hear from Mark why there is not any form of provisional or experimental registration.
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
> 
> 


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 19 February 2010 02:07:56 UTC

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