- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:23:57 +0200
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Hi, here's an update on where we are with testing the IANA registry, as seen by one of the IETF-appointed Designated Experts: 1) There have been two registration attempts for link relations: 1a) "alternate" (<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00025.html>) -- this currently is stuck because we haven't agreed on what the URI for the referenced document should be; Ian proposed <http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#rel-alternate>, while I think the registration should point to something more permanent, like an actual Working Draft. Advice from the HTML WG appreciated. 1b) "pingback" (<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00035.html>) -- this currently is stuck in that the referenced document (<http://www.hixie.ch/specs/pingback/pingback>) may not satisfy the requirements in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10#section-6.2.1>; see follow up mails for a discussion about how to proceed. 2) There has been one registration attempt for two new pieces of application data in the registry (<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00000.html>). For these we had several questions about the actual fields, their defaults, and what spec to reference (<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00030.html>). For the technical questions, I'll start separate threads over here, because we'd like to see whether there's a WG consensus behind these registrations. Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 10:24:40 UTC