Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

On 02.09.2010 17:12, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Julian Reschke<>  wrote:
>> On 02.09.2010 15:20, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> On Sep 2, 2010, at 01:03, David Singer wrote:
>>>> IANA is very successful, respected, and useful, for many many types.
>>> What Web-related registrations is IANA successful and useful for? Off the
>>> top of my head, the language tag registry is pretty complete. Other than
>>> that, the MIME registry doesn't usefully and successfully match reality
>>> (e.g. image/svg+xml), the charset registry doesn't match reality (see
>>> additional aliases in HTML5) and the URL scheme and HTTP header registries
>>> are totally out of sync with the deployed practice.
>> I agree that some registries are not complete. I disagree that it's
>> necessarily the IANA's fault. The SVG issue is a nice example for that.
> Does this mean that IANA is not planning on making any changes to
> improve the situation for these registries?

I don't know what IANA is planning.

> Does this also mean that IANA is planning on running the link-rel
> registry the same way these other registries have been run?

Each registry has its own registration procedures, and the IANA just 
applies them. The link relations registration procedure is defined in 
and very different from other registries mentioned above (partly due to 
feedback from *here*).

> Is there any reason to believe that the link-rel registry will be any
> more or less successful than these other registries.

Hard to say. For starters, there is apparently disagreement about what 
"successful" means. Also, as mentioned above, the registration 
procedures vary a lot.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 15:27:02 UTC