Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

On Aug 15, 2010, at 3:02 , Ian Hickson wrote:
> I tried Googling "RFC-nottingham-http-link-header-10". This led me to:

were you not able to follow the link on the IANA page?  

search for "link relations" on

Or is googling preferred for those that work at google :-)?

> This is a 27 page document. A quick glance at the table of contents
> was unhelpful, but a scan through the document revealed section
> "6.2.1. Registering new Link Relation Types", which for some reason is
> not in the table of contents.

The table of contents cover sections and their first-level sub-sections, pretty clearly.  Section 6.2 has a pretty obvious title, in the index.

"6.2.  Link Relation Type Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10"

The overall these of this email seems to be that it's easier to edit a wiki, than to write a stable specification, and register the code-points in it in a formal registry.  Did we really need such an email to know that, or am I missing your point?

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 09:54:40 UTC