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

Re: "index" link relation

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:43:26 -0700
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <9CA1EC03-4867-4972-9DC0-6C59F666140D@apple.com>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>

On Jun 30, 2011, at 4:57 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)
>> 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.

Let me just quote some direct statements from the decision (emphasis added):


"The final proposal argues for the removal of some relation values, to wit, it suggests removal of index, up, first and last. It was pointed out in survey comments that these relations are already registered in the IANA link relation registry. Presumably, **these relations could also be entered in whatever other registry or registries HTML5 adopts for this purpose**. "

"Next Steps
Since the relations to be removed are already registered at the IANA link relation registry, no further action is needed to include them there. WG members are **free to register or record these relations elsehwere**, as well."

I think it is very clear from these statements that the decision does not either require or forbid the registration of index or any of the other link relationships discussed there. As the person who drafted this decision document, I can also confirm that this was the intent.

I don't know what would count as "official" or not, but perhaps the two above direct quotes from the decision are sufficient.

Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 02:44:05 UTC

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