Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

Ah, so here we go with history that I was missing [I should not have opened
my mouth...]. Anyway, now I can't stop....

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>wrote:

> I feel I need to respond on this thread to clear up a number of
> (theoretical) misconceptions that contrast with actual experience with
> successfully introducing several rel values in the past decade.
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Eventually all registries held by a standards organisation go the same
> way
> > and become bureaucratic and difficult to use,
>
> This has not yet happened to http://microformats.org/wiki/ (with 5+
> years of experience), nor is there any reason to expect that it will.
>

What looks simple to you now will look like a lot of bureaucracy to the next
generation. Just look at http://microformats.org/wiki/process - it's not
simple to create a new microformat!

BTW: the next generation is more than 5 years away. ;-)

So, after 5 min of foraging and searching on that wiki, I finally found the
actual page at http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values . It's also
not fully without bureaucracy as is to be expected of any registry that is
actually working.

But after having seen that page, I personally have no problem with that
process and the page content itself. I do wonder why there is a second
registry at IANA now and why IANA and the microformats.org group cannot work
this out. It could even be done such that microformats.org have this
proposal process and once a format is approved by them to be recommended, it
could be officially entered into the IANA registry by the
microformats.orggroup. I do believe that the IANA registry is more
iron-clad and less
experimentive than the microformats.org registry.

Now, I don't know where the WHATWG registry fits in, but I would think that
it is a temporary list that could be used to update the one a
microformats.org? It also seems to have more fields than the
microformats.org list.


Note that I am talking totally off the cuff here, since I have not been
involved in this process at all. Just making a suggestion to resolve this
seemingly big conflict.

Cheers,
Silvia.