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

Re: "index" link relation

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:13:26 -0700
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <DC6BC24B-2F69-4E08-A348-AEAF1A2F721E@apple.com>
To: tantek@cs.stanford.edu

Hi Tantek,

On Jun 30, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:

> Nope those were quotes along with long extrapolations. 
> 
> Please provide URL to spec and/or decisions (such as the ones Sam provided) not email messages, and a short succinct quote (under 140 characters would be nice) from such citations that clearly substantiates your position.
> 
> And Sam's right, if no such clear substantiation exists then you'll have to open another (follow-up) issue for the wg/chairs to consider.


I'm confused about what you are expecting from the Chairs. Sam's citations should show that the decision on "index" clearly did not either require or forbid it to be registered in any external registry. It explicitly left that decision up to the relevant registration authorities. The decision to register it should follow Microformats process for managing the registry. Is there specific input required from the WG to follow that process?

As far as opening new issues, here are the circumstances where it would be called for:

(1) If there is a needed spec change for an HTML WG deliverable which was not covered by the original decision on "index", then it can simply be filed as a new bug and considered separately.

(2) If there is new information that would potentially lead to reopening the original index relation issue, then that information should be provided.

If the request is not in either of these categories, then what specifically are you looking for?

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 20:13:54 UTC

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