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

Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 08:12:48 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinODkJcriL8kOUAR73aZ1FRhts6hX4n_a2k-6=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 02.09.2010 15:20, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2010, at 01:03, David Singer wrote:
>>
>>> IANA is very successful, respected, and useful, for many many types.
>>
>> What Web-related registrations is IANA successful and useful for? Off the
>> top of my head, the language tag registry is pretty complete. Other than
>> that, the MIME registry doesn't usefully and successfully match reality
>> (e.g. image/svg+xml), the charset registry doesn't match reality (see
>> additional aliases in HTML5) and the URL scheme and HTTP header registries
>> are totally out of sync with the deployed practice.
>
> I agree that some registries are not complete. I disagree that it's
> necessarily the IANA's fault. The SVG issue is a nice example for that.

Does this mean that IANA is not planning on making any changes to
improve the situation for these registries?

Does this also mean that IANA is planning on running the link-rel
registry the same way these other registries have been run?

Is there any reason to believe that the link-rel registry will be any
more or less successful than these other registries.

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:13:39 GMT

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