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

On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:48:07 +0200, Julian Reschke <>  
>> 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?

I was probably not paying attention, did not care enough at the time, or  
maybe was hoping someone else would tackle it. Too long ago to recall  
exactly. I frequently refrain from posting to public-html as I'm afraid of  
the flood of non-technical email that will come my way.

>> 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.

This is not really what I meant. For instance, for "nofollow" it was not  
really clear whether a specification would at some point arrive, but  
everyone was using it so it should really be on the list, maybe later  
moving from "proposed" to "approved". (Also, Ian tried to register several  
values for which it was very clear that a specification at some point  
would be published and that failed, but that is really a minor point as  
overall this is too much gatekeeping.)

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 08:01:44 UTC