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

On 17.08.2010 11:52, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> On 2010-08-17 10:31, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> In any case, the registry is now up and the test has been done. It
>> doesn't seem like we will gain much more data from further
>> investigation. So it seems to me the right thing to do is check
>> whether anyone wants to propose a different solution than the IANA
>> registry (or some variant of the IANA registry approach), given the
>> information we now have available.
> Given that the IANA registry seems to be a complete and utter failure
> that doesn't meet any of the requirements for HTML5, we should instead
> develop a simplified registration system that does, but which also
> improves upon the wiki to resolve its technical limitations.

I think you're declaring "failure" way too early, in particular because 
many aspects of the IANA registry were designed based on feedback from here.

> I think the requirements for such a system should include:
> * The ability for anyone to submit a new relationship, and for it to
> be granted the status of a *proposal*. The information required for
> proposals must be clearly and objectively defined, with a low entry
> barrier. (e.g. relationship name; description; effect on <a>, <link>
> and <area>; optional link to more details; and optional synonyms)

It would be great if you would contribute to the discussion about 
whether this level of detail actually makes sense.

For instance, could you please describe to me why you *ever* wanted to 
define a link relation that isn't valid on <link>?

(see separate thread: 

> ...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 10:16:43 UTC