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

Re: "index" link relation

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:14:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4E0390A4.1090102@gmx.de>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 2011-06-23 21:11, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-06-23 21:03, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 08:20, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>> wrote:
>>> <http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values> says:
>>>
>>> "Refers to a document providing an index for the current document. was
>>> in HTML4 explicitly dropped from HTML5"
>>>
>>> and has it under "dropped".
>>>
>>> That's very misleading; it was dropped from the spec, but the WG
>>> decision
>>> explicitly mentions that not including it in the spec doesn't
>>> preclude it
>>> being in the registry (and observes that it was in the registry what
>>> was the
>>> registry-du-jour back then).
>>
>> Julian,
>>
>> Could you provide the URL (even if it is obvious) and a specific quote
>> from the WG decisions that you are using to substantiate your
>> conclusion that "not including it in the spec doesn't preclude it
>> being in the registry (and observes that it was in the registry what
>> was the registry-du-jour back then)" ?
>
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/att-0481/issue-118-decision.html>:
>
>
> "...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. In support of this proposal, and against
> the proposals to retain or alter these relations, a number of arguments
> were presented."
>
> (I actually supported the "winning" proposal under the assumption that
> it's better to have the proper values in the registry as opposed to
> broken values in the spec).
> ...

Furthermore, from the same document:

"Finally, it was noted that the link relations being dropped are already 
defined in the IANA registry and could be defined in future registries; 
but in the meantime these relations would become invalid, thus 
invalidating a great deal of content. Since validators do not implement 
relation checking at all yet and are waiting on a registry solution 
before doing so, this was also a weak objection."

Now (thanks Henri), validator.nu *does* check the relations, so what may 
have been a weak objection back then would be a strong objection now.

And, as predicted, people care much more about the validity of link 
relations when the validator actually checks them.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 19:15:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:25 UTC