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

Re: "index" link relation

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:47:36 +0200
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110623224736936748.8bddaace@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Tantek Çelik, Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:03:59 -0700:
> I personally am not opposed to 'index' in particular (I've used it in 
> the past).
> However, I strongly prefer that we follow at least some sort of
> rational/scientific methodology in such iterations so as to provide
> objective (repeatable) reasoning of our actions, decisions, changes.
> So far I've been using the data available to reason how to treat
> existing or previous rel values.
> In short:
> * if a rel value was in a draft and is missing (without explanation)
> from the final spec, or
> * if a rel value was in a previous version of and is missing (without
> explanation) from an update to the specification (even a draft update)

A repeatable, objective criteria: HTML5 doesn't per se decide what goes 
into the Microformat registry. Rather, it is the opposite way. The 
Microformats registry is supposed to be the one which forms the basis 
for whether a link relation may pass the door to the HTML5 

Therefore it doesn't make sense to simply point to HTML5 when it comes 
to justifying whether link relation should go be considered dropped or 
not by the Microformats registry.

Further more, as Julian pointed out, the HTMLwg decision was very much 
based on the fact that the matter could be solved outside the HTML 
working group.

Finally, my CP, which was the reason why it became an issue, did cover 
more than the 3 link relations you have listed as officially rejected. 
And, AFAICR, all of them were "dropped" from HTM5.
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 20:48:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:14 UTC