ISSUE-27, Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

On 15.08.2010 10:27, Jirka Kosek wrote:
> 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 or
> 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.


Just a few more thoughts:

- The archives are out there: 
form your own opinion.

- The "diary" about how to find the registry is entertaining, but 
nothing more. People who actually follow the HTML WG had all the 
information already because I've been reporting on the IANA status and 
the publication status of the draft (see, for instance, 
Actually, we have an ISSUE for this, and the W3C issue tracker has all 
the information related to this (thus I added ISSUE-27 to the subject line).

- Ian complains that he doesn't know the name of the third designated 
expert; well, he could have asked. The third DE is Eran Hammer-Law (also 
visible from <>).

- The review of the registration attempts raised technical questions, 
and the DEs weren't convinced that there's a WG consensus behind the 
technical contents. I thus have summarized the issue in 
<> for 
which I haven't seen a reply. There's also a four-week old bug 
(<>) with no activity 

Best regards, Julian

Received on Sunday, 15 August 2010 09:32:43 UTC