- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:03:36 -0700
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Sep 1, 2010, at 14:37 , 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 > use). The MIME types registry still doesn't have image/svg+xml, despite it > being a ten-year-old type. Then it's an informal type, and someone else could register it with a new, conflicting meaning. I can't speak to the history of other registrations. Generally, an RA should accept properly documented and formatted registrations; it is the job of the person or organization registering to make sure that the code point is, in fact, useful, makes sense etc. > Formal registries, at least as implemented so > far for the Web, have been a disaster in terms of how well they reflect > reality. Mostly, I fear, because people don't seem to go to the trouble of using them...and then complain when what they want to know isn't in the registry or cannot be found. > The microformats registry is far more up to date than the link > 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. But the 'we' in that sense is anyone who can edit the Wiki...which is anyone, as far as I can tell. It seems there is no sanity check. IANA is very successful, respected, and useful, for many many types. It is a formal place that handles registration. Since the people setting up the registry have indicated that they want to make it work, let's run with that and not re-invent something. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 1 September 2010 22:04:10 UTC