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

On 17.08.2010 09:10, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:03:02 +0200, Julian Reschke
> <> wrote:
>> I did not say that it is required. I just stated what I think is the
>> easiest approach, and it would be interesting to understand why you
>> think this barrier is high by any means.
> This should really not come as a surprise. I gave this as feedback long
> ago, but never got a reply.

Anne, what does this have to do with the question of whether writing an 
RFC is a high barrier?

Going back to your mail:

> Whether your extension gets endorsed or not I do not particularly care about. I just care about it being easy to register it somewhere to start with. So people can find it and see if it makes sense. If it does I'm sure that in the long run it will go from "Proposal" to "Accepted".
> And if it's not "Accepted" at least it's still registered making it clear it might be in use somewhere which in turn makes it easier for people to pick a name that does not clash with existing practice. The proposed registry horribly fails at this, much like the IANA registry for URI schemes.

When we discussed the Link header spec and ISSUE-27 we (the WG) agreed 
that "Specification Required" is the right thing to have (the proposed 
resolution of ISSUE-27 is marked has having WG consensus).

Your point seems to be that even writing a spec is too much work. I 
disagree with that, but that's it. There's your reply :-).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 07:19:43 UTC