Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

Ian Hickson wrote:

> All of these rejections -- for both the field types and the keywords
> -- have been along lines that appear to me to be highly bureaucratic
> and not at all in the best interests of the Web. It seemed at times
> that the gatekeepers (plural: two separate people responded during the
> test of the registry) are more interested in applying theoretical
> policies than actually helping people either to avoid clashes with rel
> values or to increase interoperability in this space.

Well, I haven't time to follow all cited emails, just part of them. But
in the conversation I have read it seems completely natural from
"gatekeepers" to ask for reference to more stable and established
document in /TR space then to editor's snapshots on dev.w3.org or
whatwg.org.

You can call it highly bureaucratic and standards work is sometimes
really bureaucratic (but this is nothing compared to ISO ;-), but proper
referencing is vital part of each standard text, including registration
form for registry.

    Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------