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: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 12:21:12 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTikX-wWzGvriGxbWqzmLuc1qF3FV4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.

I really don't think there is neither misunderstandings or
disagreements about what is going on here.

People just disagree about weather the IANA process in this case is good or not.

/ Jonas
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 19:22:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:27 GMT