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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:48:25 +0100
Message-ID: <4B8D4F69.7010307@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 19.02.2010 06:25, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> On 19/02/2010, at 1:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> Though it makes me wonder why there is *any* bias towards the inventor or initial implementor of a relation type being the one to register it. Apple invented and was the first to implement<canvas>, but Ian was the first to define it in a spec. That doesn't seem like a problem. As far as I recall, he didn't ask our permission either, nor did he wait to see if we would spec it first.
>
> True, but it always won't be so amicable...
>
>> Likewise, it seems like anyone should be register a relation, so long as the spec for it is consistent with existing public use. What's the reason to have a bias in favor of the originator of a relation type?
>
>
> Good point. I think there needs to be some small amount of bias, if for courtesy than nothing else, but it's probably overstated ATM. I'll adjust.
> ...

FYI:

<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08>

Diff from -07:

<http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nottingham-http-link-header-08.txt>

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 17:49:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC