Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

On 06.09.2010 12:04, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Julian Reschke<>  wrote:
>> On 06.09.2010 10:45, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Who benefits from trusting that image/svg+xml doesn't exist (and
>>> presumably "cannot" be used) or from trusting that ISO-8859-1 isn't an alias
>>> for Windows-1252 when decoding?
>>> ...
>> Henri,
>> please stop citing image/svg+xml as a case where the registry failed.
>> As far as I can tell, the registry *works*, as it has rejected the attempt
>> to register something that is incompatible with RFC 3023.
> The registry has clearly failed in the case of image/svg+xml. It's a
> mime type which people use and rely on, and that clients implement,
> thus would be dangerous for other actors to try to use. Yet it is not
> in the registry.

It is not in the registry because no proper definition has been supplied 

And I'm pretty certain that the designated experts are aware of it in 
being in use, and that they will reject any attempt to register it for 
something else.

> We can certainly try to assign blame, and figure out if it's the fault
> of the people who didn't register the mimetype when they started to
> use it, or if they attempted to register but ignored the correct
> advice from the people running the registry telling them not to use it
> since it's in violation of rfc 3023, or if it's the people running the
> registry for making registration such a complicated procedure as to
> deter people from using it.
> However this doesn't change the fact that the registry has not worked.

Whether it has "worked" or not depends on how you define "working" in 
the context of a registry.

I'm actually very happy that registrations are checked.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 6 September 2010 10:20:16 UTC