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

Re: "index" link relation

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:32:01 -0400
Message-ID: <4E0D1581.1040504@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html@w3.org
On 06/30/2011 07:57 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 13:13, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs@apple.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi Tantek,
>> On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>>> Nope those were quotes along with long extrapolations.
>>> Please provide URL to spec and/or decisions (such as the ones Sam
>>> provided) not email messages, and a short succinct quote (under
>>> 140 characters would be nice) from such citations that clearly
>>> substantiates your position.
>>> And Sam's right, if no such clear substantiation exists then
>>> you'll have to open another (follow-up) issue for the wg/chairs
>>> to consider.
>> I'm confused about what you are expecting from the Chairs.
> To be clear: I'm not requesting anything from the Chairs.
>> Sam's citations should show that the decision on "index" clearly
>> did not either require or forbid it to be registered in any
>> external registry. It explicitly left that decision up to the
>> relevant registration authorities. The decision to register it
>> should follow Microformats process for managing the registry.
> I appreciate your clarification on that point - may I take that as
> an official chair statement? (as I'm assuming you're speaking as a
> chair on public-html unless disclaimed otherwise)

I'm not certain why you are looking for an official chair statement. 
What matters here is what the spec says.

Additionally you seem to be looking for some sort of substantiation. 

   My concern is this, given that "index" was in the core HTML4 spec,
   and now isn't in the core HTML5 spec, we must be diligent in
   explaining *why* it is ok that we still register it (e.g. with
   specific quote from the WG decision that explains that it's ok).

I have no idea why you might think the HTML5 spec is deficient, or even 
if you do think it is deficient.  But if it is lacking some clarity in 
this manner necessary for this registration to proceed, could you please 
identify what is missing from the spec, preferably in the form of a bug 

>> Is there specific input required from the WG to follow that
>> process?
> With the above clarification, no there does not appear to be.
> What I was concerned about is if the wording from the chairs'
> decisions either required non-trivial extrapolation or if there
> could multiple (potentially contradicting) interpretations, then
> anyone wanting to base their point on those decisions may have to
> raise an issue for further clarification.

What matters is what the spec says.  In this case, we chose to adopt the 
editor's recommendation.  If you find that the that proposal requires 
any sort of non-trivial extrapolation, you are encouraged to file bug 
reports or present that as new information potentially leading to the 
reopening of the issue.

>> If the request is not in either of these categories, then what
>> specifically are you looking for?
> I'm not looking for anything from the chairs. My request is to those
> that wish to quote/cite the wg/chairs decisions to substantiate
> their points/requests/proposals.

What should be cited is the spec.  In this case, it is very difficult to 
cite something that isn't there.  If you feel that the spec needs to be 
updated in order for there to be something for you to cite, please 
report that either as a bug report or as new information.

> Thanks,
> Tantek

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 00:32:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:15 UTC