W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: ISSUE-27 survey feedback, was: Responses to objections to the Microformats rel registry CP

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 20:26:34 +0200
Message-ID: <4D9E01DA.5050301@gmx.de>
To: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org
On 07.04.2011 20:10, Edward O'Connor wrote:
> Julian wrote:
>>> Because we haven't got a spec that the designated experts (including
>>> myself) consider stable enough; note that this affect both content and
>>> location.
>
> Henri replied:
>> This is ridiculous. The pingback spec has been stable in terms of both
>> content and location since 2002.
>
> Indeed.

Yes.

>> I think this should be treated as evidence that the procedures at IANA
>> (as implemented by the current Designated Experts at least) don't work.
>
> Agreed. I think any rel value registration procedure that would require
> the pingback spec's content *or location* to change is unacceptable.

We have discussed this over and over.

This registry (reminder: requirements differ by registry, and not all 
IANA registries are the same) requires "Specification Required", which 
translates to:

       Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be
             documented in a permanent and readily available public
             specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability
             between independent implementations is possible.  When used,
             Specification Required also implies use of a Designated
             Expert, who will review the public specification and
             evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to allow
             interoperable implementations.  The intention behind
             "permanent and readily available" is that a document can
             reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long
             after IANA assignment of the requested value.  Publication
             of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement,
             but Specification Required is intended to also cover the
             case of a document published outside of the RFC path.  For
             RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is expected
             to provide the necessary review for interoperability, though
             the Designated Expert may be a particularly well-qualified
             person to perform such a review.

...for which a private web page isn't good enough (due to to 
"permanence" requirement), but a web page run by a community (such as 
microformats.org) might be.

Just clarifying.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 18:27:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:24 UTC