Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

On 01.09.2010 23:37, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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

Context: 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00054.html>

> 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

That's entirely the fault of the people who didn't register it.

> 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

The link relations registry has been created five weeks ago, and the 
related RFC isn't even published.

> 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.

I think that's up to the WG to decide, and related to the outcome of 
ISSUE-27.

Best regards, Julian