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

Re: "index" link relation

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:33:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOACb=JicTYp13S5FdJE3t-Ygw5FAd1Ham6NpoXxr2st8vOsvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 13:13, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2011-07-01 04:43, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> ...
>> Let me just quote some direct statements from the decision (emphasis
>> added):
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/att-0481/issue-118-decision.html>
>> "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.
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>> ...
> Maciej,
> thanks for repeating this.

Maciej, thanks for providing a URL and succinct specific quotes.

> Tantek, what's the next step now? I'm really trying to understand how the
> registry is supposed to work.

This is the first time we've had to deal with rel values that were
implicitly obsoleted by being dropped from one version of a
specification to another, yet were explicitly stated as ok to

Lacking any explicit process for handling this case, I've gone ahead
and documented such rel values in a new table [1]

[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#dropped_without_prejudice

with the straw proposal that any such values are registrable similar
to new values that have never been specified which I believe reflects
the intent behind the cited WG decision URL and quotes. Feel free to
suggest an alternative on the microformats-discuss mailing list, or
any improvements you think would be more acceptable to the working

> Should I edit the page?

If you wish to propose one of the "dropped without prejudice" values,
please go ahead and edit the wiki to register it as a proposed value
as you would a new value.

Note that only "index" was defined in HTML4 and subsequently dropped
from HTML5. "up" was defined in HTML3 but dropped from HTML4 (reason
unknown), and both "first" and "last" were never in an official
specification - all of that is documented in [1].

> Do I need to subscribe
> to a mailing list and make the case?

There is no need to subscribe to a mailing list to register a proposed value.

> Feedback appreciated,
> Julian

Hope that helps and thanks for your patience and diligence in handling
this particular special case of rel values.



http://tantek.com/ - I made an HTML5 tutorial! http://tantek.com/html5
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 01:35:04 UTC

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