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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:24:23 -0800
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>
Message-id: <8C1C1498-4D3A-4A2C-BB62-591351BA2FD8@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

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.

Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 13:24:57 UTC

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