W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2005

Re: new issue? squatting on link relationship names, x-tokens, registries, and URI-based extensibility

From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:59:58 +0200
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <opsou7t8qzsmjzpq@r600.lan>

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 11:18:11 -0500, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:

> Should all new link relationships go thru the W3C HTML Working
> Group? No, of course not. The profile mechanism is there
> to decentralize the process.
>
> Should W3C run a registry of link relationship names?
> That seems boring and inefficient, to me. It can't possibly
> cost less time and effort to apply for a W3C-registered
> link relationship name than it can to reserve a domain name
> and run a web server, can it? If Google and Mozilla really
> want the community agree to these short names, I'd be
> happy to see them use the W3C member submissions process.
>  http://www.w3.org/Submission/

Note that in the work to integrate RDF and XHTML, XHTML2 has introduced  
qnamed link relationships [1] with the aim of making it easier to  
introduce your own names. The profile mechanism of HTML4 is perceived as  
too vague to be of real use, and putting the values in your own namespace  
makes it easy to disambiguate values.

[1]  
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/2005/WD-xhtml2-20050406/mod-metaAttributes.html#adef_metaAttributes_rel

Steven Pemberton
CHair, HTML WG
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 14:00:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:34 GMT