- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 23:24:30 +1000
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
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