- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:40:09 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham 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. At least for the existing relations we need to advise producers to produce the short variant. >> 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. +1. BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 13:40:58 UTC