- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:28:26 +1100
- To: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Atom Syntax <atom-syntax@imc.org>, www-tag@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 10/12/2008, at 8:55 PM, Phil Archer wrote: > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> How about: >> <t>New relation types MUST correspond to a formal >> publication by a >> recognized standards body. In the case of registration >> for the IETF >> itself, the registration proposal MUST be published as an >> Standards-track RFC.</t> >> Note that unlike media types, this does NOT require IESG approval >> for relation types from outside the IETF; rather, just a 'formal >> publication', which AIUI corresponds to the REC track in the W3C >> (but not Notes), OASIS standard, etc. >> Feedback appreciated. > > I see what you're trying to do here, and, as someone with a rel type > registration request pending with IANA, I can only sympathise. > However, I see two problems: > > 1. Your proposed text entails the definition of a 'recognised > standards body' - that alone could cause controversy. Any list of > such bodies written today could well be out of date by this time > next year. AIUI it's up to the IESG at time time of request; there doesn't need to be a list as such. That said, it's starting to seem like the Specification Required approach mentioned by Julian might be a better fit. > 2. I understand that the Web works by keeping things distributed > rather than centralised, but in this case, there would still be a > need for some sort of central 'list of registered relationship > types' to avoid two working groups in different standards bodies > coming up with new definitions for existing rel types. Now, to go > back to an older idea, /that/ could be a wiki - a simple table > giving the rel type, the description and the relevant formal > publication. But for this to work, the wiki would probably need to > be cited in the I-D/RFC and we're back to who is going to host that? That would entail all sorts of process problems from the IETF, which already has a well-recognised body to handle this, IANA. It's a real challenge to get a URI into an IETF spec, much less a Wiki page. How will you prevent people from changing or deleting existing entries? Who will monitor it for abuse? Beyond that, a wiki is in effect a first-come, first-served mechanism to avoid conflicts, and allowing URIs already serves that function; i.e., they already assure that two WGs won't define the same relation. The point of a central registry is to converge upon well-understood, well-defined and agreed upon link types that are of common value and can be reused. The free-for-all that a wiki entails will result in (insert evil company here) grabbing a "common" name first and defining it in their interest, without consultation with the rest of the community; interoperability problems as people don't document their relation types well, or think about how they'll be used; and so on. Having a registry with some bar for entry is designed to encourage good design, interoperability, and grow the commons; it's not just there to avoid conflicts and be a pain in the posterior to impatient developers. Despite how it seems sometimes. > > > Phil. > >> On 02/12/2008, at 7:10 AM, Dan Connolly wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:11 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> [...] >>>> I'm particularly interested in feedback regarding registration >>>> requirements, as I think that's the biggest remaining sticking >>>> point. >>>> Note that it was previously "IESG Approval"; I've changed it to >>>> "IETF >>>> Review" (nee "IETF Consensus") so that a document is required. >>>> Also, I >>>> believe this still accommodates other standards orgs (like the W3C) >>>> using their processes to publish documents that register entries, >>>> just >>>> as with media types. >>> >>> That would surprise me; while there is a significant overlap in the >>> communities, the IETF does not, in general, accept consensus >>> in the W3C community in place of consensus in its own community. >>> >>> The media type registration spec phrases it this way: >>> >>> >>> 3.1. Standards Tree >>> >>> The standards tree is intended for types of general interest to the >>> Internet community. Registrations in the standards tree MUST be >>> approved by the IESG and MUST correspond to a formal publication >>> by a >>> recognized standards body. In the case of registration for the >>> IETF >>> itself ... >>> >>> >>> -- http://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=4288#page-4 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ >>> gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E >>> >>> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > -- > Phil Archer > w. http://philarcher.org/ -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2008 10:29:10 UTC