On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:19:01 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > 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). I see no such thing in http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27 ? > 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 :-). Thank you for reading my email and missing my point entirely. Writing a specification as a barrier to enter the registry is too much work. Many link relations have seen widespread adoption before a formal specification was written. I have no objection against requiring a specification before formally approving a link relation, but putting one in the registry (marked as "proposal") should be very very easy. As e.g. XPointer solved it: http://www.w3.org/2005/04/xpointer-policy.html (I agree with Ian though that not adding more systems for the W3C Team to maintain would be a good thing and that therefore a wiki is better.) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 07:37:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:22 UTC