W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2010

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

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:19:24 +0100
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u79wmmzr64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:09:21 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
> On 17.02.2010 13:59, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:55:10 +0100, Julian Reschke
>> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 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,  
> <http://docs.oasis-open.org/cmis/CMIS/v1.0/cd06/cmis-spec-v1.0.html#_Toc243905525>.

Uh, yuk?

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:58 UTC