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 23:15:19 +0200
Message-ID: <4E03ACE7.3030700@gmx.de>
To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
CC: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 2011-06-23 23:03, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> 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?

That's usually the point of a registry.

As such, I disagree with what Leif said as well: "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."

No! Usually the point of a registry is to *decouple* the container 
format from the definitions of extensions. Once you have a working 
registry, you don't need to include values into the base spec, except 
for those which *need* to be defined there.

For instance, HTTP does have a registry for status codes. We don't 
*need* to include them into the base spec, unless they are somehow 
"special".

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 21:16:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:33 GMT