Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:27 PM, David Singer <> wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2010, at 8:12 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> 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?
> The idea that registries should trawl the world looking for usages, guess what they are and what they mean, invent definitions and specifications to back up those guesses, is, if you think about it, rather bizarre.  But I can't think what else you are suggesting (well, maybe telepathy) if the registry is to be criticized for not containing things that no-one has tried to register.

For what it's worth, I haven't suggested that registries should trawl
the world looking for usages. But others might have have so I'll
assume the above was targeted at those people.

*I* was merely asking if IANA was taking a "stay the course" approach.

> On Sep 2, 2010, at 13:48 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> It *does* work, but it requires people to actually attempt the registration,
>>> and potentially fix problems with the registration. That is a *feature*.
>> I guess we might have different definitions of "work". If the registry
>> does not match real world usage, then IMHO it doesn't work.
> 'The garbage collection service doesn't work, they didn't take my garbage away.' 'Did you put it out on the curbside on the appropriate day?'  'No, that was too difficult, but it's still their fault.'

"people keep inventing new things and not putting our registry."
"Well, we designed these TPS reports that needs to be filled out in
triplicates and filed with the appropriate departments. We even posted
a 10 page description of the process in the basement." "Ah, clearly
people are too lazy to read, stay the course."

/ Jonas

Received on Thursday, 2 September 2010 22:46:42 UTC