- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:03:17 -0700
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 13:47, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > 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 > specification. cite/link to HTML5 spec text or WG decision text that supports this "supposed to be" assertion? > 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. It's your responsibility to register them per the process. Tantek -- http://tantek.com/ - I made an HTML5 tutorial! http://tantek.com/html5
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 21:04:34 UTC