- From: Michael(tm) Smith <sideshowbarker@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:56:37 +0900
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
From: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org> Hi Leif, > @2010-11-05 21:40 +0100: > Julian Reschke, Fri, 05 Nov 2010 10:24:56 +0100: > > http://www.w3.org/2010/11/04-html-wg2-minutes.html > > Mike, in the minutes, you are quoted for saying: > > ]] MikeSmith: Before ? pointed out xpointer, I didn't > know we did registries [[ > > Then what about the XHTML Vocabulary? We have mentioned it many times. > It is also a kind of role registry. ...except that it doesn't actually call itself a registry, and doesn't seem to have been intended as a registry in the normal sense. And it doesn't itself provide any information at all to readers about how they might themselves propose new vocabulary items to be added to that page. > It is not a "registry office" I don't think most people would say that it's any kind of registry at all. > though (unlike the xpointer registry), but "documentation registry" - I would doubt that what you intend by the term "documentation registry" would be clear at all to most people familiar with existing IANA registries or similar registries elsewhere. > the actual registries are the specs which the relations and roles on > that page are taken from. > > http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab/ That seems like an especially atypical use of the term "registry", and I would think that a lot of people might anyway not see how it's relevant to the discussion about what would be the best way to implement a proper registry mechanism for link relations. --Mike -- Michael(tm) Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2010 03:57:09 UTC