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

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:09:21 +0100, Julian Reschke <>  
> On 17.02.2010 13:59, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:55:10 +0100, Julian Reschke
>> <> wrote:
>>> - 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).
>> To be frank, only a few would mint URLs. The rest will keep continue
>> doing what they always did, and rightly so. Using URLs as rel values
>> would be extremely cumbersome.
> I agree that many people ignore registries, no matter how simple they  
> are. Why? Because they can get away with it.

Yeah, and I'm totally cool with that. I just want the registry to reflect  
what is out there.

> For those who actually do care, I think using something in a vendor  
> namespace is *very* similar* to using a URI.
> See, for instance,  
> <>.

Uh, yuk?

Anne van Kesteren

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 13:20:05 UTC