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

Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:26:34 -0700
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <0A20FAC0-50B8-47B0-88D5-9BB0567EAAD2@apple.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>

On Sep 2, 2010, at 3:27 PM, David Singer wrote:

> 
> On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:12 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
> 
>>> 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?
> 
> The idea that registries should trawl the world looking for usages, guess what they are and what they mean, invent definitions and specifications to back up those guesses, is, if you think about it, rather bizarre.  But I can't think what else you are suggesting (well, maybe telepathy) if the registry is to be criticized for not containing things that no-one has tried to register.

It's possible to have a registry that has a very low barrier to entry for at least "provisional" registration. The microformats.org link relation registry, and the IANA HTTP header field registry, are examples of registries where just claiming the name is really low cost, even if there are extra steps to get it fully approved.

In the case of namespaces on the Web where people may invent new values at will, it can be argued that there is significant social value to centrally documenting the values people have invented, even if some are not documented well enough or vetted sufficiently to be given a full stamp of approval. I believe that is the position taken by those who say a registry should "reflect reality".

> 
> On Sep 2, 2010, at 13:13 , Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Whose fault it is is entirely irrelevant for our purposes.  If the
>> IANA registry were hard to use because its servers went down on a
>> monthly basis due to being struck by meteors because a former IANA
>> executive was the subject of a gypsy curse, it would still be hard to
>> use, and we would want to look for alternatives.  That it's not their
>> fault is no compensation for the fact that it doesn't work.
> 
> The basic point is that IANA maintains a stable registry whose definitions and rules are set by the people who ask for the registry in the first place.  That's us.  We have met the enemy, and they are ourselves.

FYI a number of people suggested a provisional registration procedure when the IANA registry was discussed some months ago. However, that suggestion was rejected on the basis that normal non-provisional registration would be so easy that there was not need for a provisional state.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 23:27:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:19 UTC