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

Re: "index" link relation

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:54:34 +0200
Message-ID: <4E09A4DA.6080405@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 23:15, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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

Tantek, what's the next step now?

Should I go ahead and edit the Wiki page?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 09:55:03 UTC

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