- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:22:28 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 02.09.2010 05:17, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> I wonder why IANA doesn't go out actively to try and keep their
> registries up-to-date with real-world use.
If you mean IANA, the organization: it's not their job. They are really
only a registrar and depend on other people (IESG, designated experts)
to provide technical feedback.
> 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.
Sometimes, pointing this out apparently isn't sufficient or controversial.
And sometimes, the people who minted a value do not seem to be willing
to actually document (thinking about search engines and how they process
particular link relations).
> 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?
I'm sure IANA could be "fixed", but that would require new contracts and
budgets.
In the particular case of the link relation registry, the spec says:
Note that relation types can be registered by third parties, if the
Designated Expert determines that an unregistered relation type is
widely deployed and not likely to be registered in a timely manner.
--
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10#section-6.2.1>
Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 07:23:11 UTC