Re: ISSUE-27: rel-ownership - Chairs Solicit Proposals

On 17.02.2010 14:04, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> ...
>> My 2 cents:
>> - I've been following the discussions (as document shepherd), and I
>> don't believe the question ever came up before
>> - One of the reasons it may not have been raised is that link relation
>> types do not *need* to be registered; you can always use a URI you
>> control (that would address the vendor namespace, for instance).
> That would address vendor namespaces, but not registration of rel values
> you find arleady in active use by third parties.

Yes, that's what I just said :-).

>> That's not entirely true, for instance the requirements for
>> provisional URI schemes are:
>> 3. Guidelines for Provisional URI Scheme Registration
>> While the guidelines in Section 2 are REQUIRED for permanent
>> registration, they are RECOMMENDED for provisional registration. For
>> a provisional registration, the following are REQUIRED:
> RECOMMENDED is a lower level of requirement than REQUIRED (a SHOULD, not
> a MUST). I have no problem with a universal SHOULD-level requirement.
> It's just not clear to me that when you can't meet it, the rel value
> should remain completely unregistered.

I'm aware of that. I was just trying to point out that "provisional" 
doesn't mean "anything goes".

>> o The scheme name meets the syntactic requirements of Section 2.8.
>> o There is not already an entry with the same URI scheme name. (In
>> the unfortunate case that there are multiple, different uses of
>> the same scheme name, the IESG may approve a request to modify an
>> existing entry to note the separate use.)
>> o Contact information identifying the person supplying the
>> registration is included. Previously unregistered URI schemes
>> discovered in use may be registered by third parties on behalf of
>> those who created the URI scheme; in this case, both the
>> registering party and the scheme creator SHOULD be identified.
> This bullet is exactly the kind of thing I think ought to be allowed,
> but effectively is not (unless you are able to reverse engineer a spec
> for the rel value).

I don't see how this is disallowed for "rel". Write a spec, and request 
registration. What you can't do is specify somebody else as relation 
creator without their agreement.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 13:16:43 UTC