- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 00:03:24 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 01.09.2010 23:37, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, David Singer wrote: >> >> A formal registry is a place where you can go to find out what is >> actually happening > > Very few of the Web-related registries fit this criteria. For example, the > Microformats registry has "pingback" in it; the rel="" registry does not > (and the application was rejected, despite the keyword being in very wide Context: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00054.html> > use). The MIME types registry still doesn't have image/svg+xml, despite it > being a ten-year-old type. Formal registries, at least as implemented so That's entirely the fault of the people who didn't register it. > far for the Web, have been a disaster in terms of how well they reflect > reality. The microformats registry is far more up to date than the link The link relations registry has been created five weeks ago, and the related RFC isn't even published. > relations registry. There's no reason we shouldn't consider it the > official place to look to see what a link relation's spec is, or to ensure > that we aren't overlapping with someone else when we invent a new type. I think that's up to the WG to decide, and related to the outcome of ISSUE-27. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 22:04:06 UTC