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

Re: "index" link relation

From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:21:42 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=1BpFtNkbWryE8AVNyS4DOxdgiiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 02:54, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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?

I was unable to follow Leif's reasoning - especially as it didn't
cite/quote anything from the spec or the decisions.


> Should I go ahead and edit the Wiki page?

My concern is this, given that "index" was in the core HTML4 spec, and
now isn't in the core HTML5 spec, we must be diligent in explaining
*why* it is ok that we still register it (e.g. with specific quote
from the WG decision that explains that it's ok).

If you can find such a quote (and not have to add sentences/paragraphs
of explanation/theory, i.e. this email thread), then yes, go ahead and
edit the wiki to register 'index' and add that specific cite/quote of
the WG decision.

Otherwise I think the issue needs to raised back to the chairs for
clarification.  Given that it was an issue raised to and resolved by
the chairs in the first place, it behooves us ask them if we're unable
to provide a clear direct quote that substantiates re-adding 'index'.

Thanks,

Tantek

-- 
http://tantek.com/ - I made an HTML5 tutorial! http://tantek.com/html5
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 01:23:01 UTC

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