Julian Reschke wrote on 07/03/2008 09:40:09 AM: > > 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. If that advice was present in the document, the feed validator would certainly implement that advice... for the case of link elements in Atom feeds.> > >> 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 - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2008 14:29:42 UTC