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

RE: Report on testing of the link relations registry

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>
Cc: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01ee01cb4a1f$b7249260$256db720$@edu>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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.

The down side however with a "wiki" being the official place is that any
idiot can go into the wiki and wreak havoc, and there are few checks and
balances in place: yes, 'wiki' etiquette and honorable and gentlemanly
(and womanly) behavior should apply, but a recent attack on some recent
entries on the W3C wiki this week serve to highlight the problem with this
method.

I understand (and am sympathetic to) Ian's frustration with his attempt to
work within the IANA registry, but leaving things completely up to a wiki
seems to me too far a swing in the opposite direction. Is there a middle
ground somewhere?

My $0.02

JF
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 22:00:45 GMT

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