W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2008

Re: New Version Notification for draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 23:24:30 +1000
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4B4C1F16-BA0E-49B2-92E9-0BC657FA9B51@mnot.net>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>

On 03/07/2008, at 11:20 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:12:28 -0700, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>  
> wrote:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-02.txt
> This draft suggests both
>  rel="http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/stylesheet"
> and
>  rel="stylesheet"
> should work. That seems bad as it's not backwards compatible and  
> complicates the processing model for no good reason.

I think we could add advice and/or requirements to address that.

> I'm also not really convinced that an IANA registry is the way to  
> go. The WHATWG wiki (or something equivalent) seems a much more  
> flexible approach (and is in fact already in use).

Is there a technical argument behind that, or is it just personal  
preference? IANA is well-recognised, has processes in place for change  
control, is accountable for availability, continuity, etc. and is  
backed by a stable financial structure. I don't see any benefit to  
making an exception for one type of registry when every other one on  
the Internet uses IANA, but maybe I'm missing something.

Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 13:25:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:35 UTC