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

On 17.08.2010 09:36, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:19:01 +0200, Julian Reschke
> <> 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 ?

Sam reported "rough consensus" in March:


Not sure what happened since then, except that we had an endless 
discussion about who's going to test the registry. I don't think there 
was any discussion about the "specification requirement" aspect, thus my 
assumption that we agreed on it.

>> 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.

OK, thanks for clarifying.

So why didn't you raise that issue when the CfC was running?

> As e.g. XPointer solved it:
> (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.)


    Registration requests consist of the completed registration template
    below, typically published in an RFC or Open Standard (in the sense
    described by [RFC2026], Section 7).  However, to allow for the
    allocation of values prior to publication, the Designated Expert may
    approve registration once they are satisfied that a specification
    will be published.

Best regards, Julian

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 07:48:47 UTC