- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:24:23 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Feb 17, 2010, at 5:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 17.02.2010 14:04, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> >> 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 :-). The latter is more what I am concerned about, since people make up rel values all the time without asking anyone's permission. > >>> 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". No one said it did. > >>> 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. I don't think it's a good idea to leave values in common use completely undocumented in the registry. It means that a good samaritan who finds someone else's unregistered header cannot ensure that it is documented without writing a full specification that will survive formal review. Like I said, I'm not going to object on this basis, I was just curious to hear from Mark why there is not any form of provisional or experimental registration. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 13:24:57 UTC