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

Re: "index" link relation

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 09:29:28 +0200
Message-ID: <4E156058.6010800@gmx.de>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 2011-07-07 03:33, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> Maciej,
>>
>> thanks for repeating this.
>
> Maciej, thanks for providing a URL and succinct specific quotes.

As far as I can tell, Maciej just repeated what I told you two weeks 
ago. But anyway.

>> 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
> register.

Not true. You've been reading something into the decision that never was 
there. There was no "obsoletion" whatsoever.

> 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
> group.
 > ...

Thanks.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 07:29:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:36 GMT