Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

I wonder why IANA doesn't go out actively to try and keep their registries
up-to-date with real-world use.
That, in combination with submissions, could make it a much more useful and
up-to-date service.
At least they could publish a list of candidates for the registry where the
documentation is not sufficient so people can go and get that fixed.
The world works differently now to when IANA was set up and maybe it's time
to think about the service model that IANA is using?

Cheers,
Silvia.


On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, David Singer wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> In the real world, they couldn't. rel=pingback and Content-Type:
> image/svg+xml have established deployments and attempting to use those
> values with a different meaning -- even if the registries accepted them --
> would be completely incompatible with actual dployed content and software.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> I'm not interested in playing the blame game. The point is that the
> registries don't work. Whether that's because of a problem with the
> registries or whether that's because their users are too lazy really
> doesn't change the end result.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> The Microformats wiki has a long established community that performs
> maintenance of the wiki. I would be happy to trust them to maintain a
> registry as well. Since it is an open community, anyone interested in
> maintaining the registry's sanity (as you put it) would be presumably
> welcome to participate in doing so, including anyone currently
> volunteering to maintain the IANA one.
>
>
> > IANA is very successful, respected, and useful, for many many types.
>
> I question all three of those premises, but it is not my goal to attack
> IANA or defend the Microformats community (or indeed the WHATWG community
> or the Wikipedia community; it would be equally fine by me for a registry
> to be in those places too). My point is just that the process for keeping
> track of registered link relation types should be one that is suited to
> today's Web, with minimal overhead. We shouldn't have to send an e-mail,
> wait for a human to respond, etc, when all we want to do is say "I'm going
> to use this type".
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
>