- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:52:01 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > I'd suggest not to pretend that everything is a URI. HTML5 does allow > URIs (if that's a concern) as tokens as the only requirement is that a > token consists of at least one character and no whitespace characters. URIs give you the infrastructure for disambiguating relation names without a central registry. Some consider this a feature. >> 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. > > The reason is that it makes managing the registry less centralized. As > in, everyone can easily propose something new that is then subject to > community review on whether it will be endorsed or unendorsed. See > > http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/RelExtensions > > for instance. > ... Again, there's no need to centrally register a relation name, as it can be a URI. BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 13:52:48 UTC