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 22:02:47 +0000 (UTC)
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
cc: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1009012153060.27869@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, John Foliot wrote:
> 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.

The proposal is not to replace the registry+experts with a wiki. It's to 
replace the registry+experts with a wiki+experts. The experts in the 
former case are volunteers appointed by some organisation or other, the 
experts in the latter case can be anyone who wants to participate. In both 
cases there is active maintenance of the data.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 22:03:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:04 UTC