Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 17, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>
>>
> Which organisation would you trust to be the most consistent about
> maintaining the registry? Would the WHATWG registry disappear and just point
> at the Microformats registry as the authoritative one? Or the other way
> round?
>
> Since both, the WHATWG and the Microformats are more "living" lists, i.e.
> take on experimental work as well as an interim list, could they be used as
> contributors to the IANA list, where only the well-accepted ones get listed?
> If so, maybe a simpler process for moving something from the
> Microformats/WHATWG list into the IANA list could be determined?
>
> It actually seems to me that the W3C is standing in the middle of three
> other organisations that are trying to claim authoritative registry status
> for different reasons and we are only moderating because we have a big stake
> in the use of the names. Are we even in a position to resolve this or is
> this just a random discussion?
>
>
> I don't have very strong feelings about how to resolve this, other than
> thinking it's time to get other proposals written up and on the table. But I
> wonder if, based on what you say, a proposal like this could work:
>
> - The Microformats wiki (or some other extremely lightweight mechanism,
> perhaps hosted by W3C), will be considered the canonical registry for
> "provisional" state link relations.
> - Assuming the Microformats community is willing, we enhance the
> Microformats wiki with the information needed for HTML5 (i.e. whether each
> relation applies to <a>, <link> or both, assuming HTML5 continues to make
> this distinction).
> - The IANA registry will be considered the canonical registry for
> "accepted" state link relations.
> - If the Designated Experts for the registry are not willing add the fields
> needed for HTML5 (i.e. whether each relation applies to <a>, <link> or both,
> assuming HTML5 continues to make this distinction) but the Microformats
> community is, we can use the Microformats wiki as the canonical place for
> this information.
>
> For registrations of link types defined in the HTML5 draft itself, can we
> find some way past the issue of what URL to reference?
>
> My suggestion: provide the TR link as the canonical long-term reference
> (that is where the CR/PR/REC versions will live) as well as an Editor's
> Draft link as a short-term informative reference. Once HTML5 goes to CR and
> later stages, it's very unlikely there will be changes to the spec. If
> future versions of HTML change some link relations, then it would be
> appropriate to re-register at that time. So it seems to me this fits the
> model. A "provisional" registry could of course point straight to the
> editor's draft if that seems more appropriate.
>
> I believe such an approach would play to the respective strengths and
> established track records of the Microformats community and the IANA/IETF
> community, and would strike the right balance between lightweight
> provisional registration and carefully considered full registration.
>
> I am curious if WG members would find an approach like this reasonable.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
That's exactly what I had in mind. In addition to that, people need to be
given instructions on how this actually works. Thus, I would suggest that
the process needs support from both organisations:
* IANA should put up a Web form to submit registrations with all the details
to make it simpler to submit
* Microformats should point to the IANA Web page
* IANA should point to the Microformats page to encourage people to use it
for initial registrations until the new proposal has found enough support

Cheers,
Silvia.