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

Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 21:37:29 +0000 (UTC)
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1009012134250.27869@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, David Singer wrote:
> 
> A formal registry is a place where you can go to find out what is 
> actually happening

Very few of the Web-related registries fit this criteria. For example, the 
Microformats registry has "pingback" in it; the rel="" registry does not 
(and the application was rejected, despite the keyword being in very wide 
use). The MIME types registry still doesn't have image/svg+xml, despite it 
being a ten-year-old type. Formal registries, at least as implemented so 
far for the Web, have been a disaster in terms of how well they reflect 
reality. The microformats registry is far more up to date than the link 
relations registry. There's no reason we shouldn't consider it the 
official place to look to see what a link relation's spec is, or to ensure 
that we aren't overlapping with someone else when we invent a new type.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 21:37:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:14 GMT