Re: ISSUE-27: rel-ownership Change Proposal discussion

Tantek - 

On 21/01/2010, at 2:10 PM, Tantek Celik wrote:

> While I admire a lot of the good work that has gone into "Web Linking", I must point out that in the decade+ since HTML4 (or 4.01), wiki-based methods of researching, exploring, brainstorming, proposing, testing, implementing, and iterating on rel values has actually served the web design and development communities reasonably well, with a good variety of rel values being published and interoperably implemented, whereas in that same decade+ time period, IETF/W3C-based processes have been largely absent or stagnant in terms of rel value development (with a few notable exceptions like Atom).
> Thus I do think in general we have a decade+ of experience that for this particular space of standards/extensions, community wiki-based methods have been superior (in direct contradiction of the assertion that "may not be a workable solution in the long run" - 10+ years is not a bad "long run" frankly), and I would hate to lose that moving forward.

Not to quibble, but you quote ten years, whereas WHOIS says was registered in 2005 -- the same year that Atom's link relation registry, which Web Linking is based upon, was created. When did you actually start using a wiki? Was there one somewhere else?

> I'm not saying that wiki-based methods have been perfect by any means, nor am I saying that they couldn't be improved. However, they've been the best we have seen *in practice*, and that's worth a lot IMHO.
> However, as I said, a lot of the good work has gone into "Web Linking", and would like to see the improvements/changes proposed there pursued  within the communities that have been carrying rel forward in the past 10+ years (primarily, so that they can be evaluated/critiqued/iterated by those who have been working on them to date, and incorporated into the specs there as well.

According to my mailbox, you've been aware of the draft for more than a year (at the least; it's been around since 2006). Do you have additional feedback?


Mark Nottingham

Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 03:20:27 UTC