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

Re: "index" link relation

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:03:17 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=GnLbTXYaLdJX6ZniPXu2g7DCObg@mail.gmail.com>
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.


http://tantek.com/ - I made an HTML5 tutorial! http://tantek.com/html5
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 21:04:34 UTC

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