- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:26:42 +1000
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Thanks, I'll do that. An update on the Web Linking specification -- it's been in the AUTH48 state for several weeks, pending the resolution of some issues with IANA about how the registry works. The result of that is that we discovered that the text about how IANA is to interact with the Experts was too specific, and was going to cause problems for IANA. As a result, we're considering removing the details of their interaction (section 6.2.1, "When a registration request is successful,..."), as well as the XML format specified in Appendix A. See: http://www.mnot.net/test/rfc5988-diff.html for a *proposed* diff from -10 (this also includes a number of editorial changes from the RFC Editor). The underlying intent is for IANA to publish the registry data in the XML format that they are in the process of converting all registries into, so that they can use the same toolchain to produce it, and so that any tooling for consuming registry data can be reused. For an example of the format, see: http://www.iana.org/assignments/eap-numbers/eap-numbers.xml The effects of this will be that the XML -- as well as HTML -- registry data will be available from the IANA site. Three issues that are still being discussed are: 1) Assuring that the registry data is licensed under unambiguous terms. RFC Editor feedback suggested we use the Simplified BSD license (see <http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/archive/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-20091228.htm> section 4.c) for this, which I've had positive responses to privately. 2) Assuring that the XML format is stable and any future changes will be backwards-compatible. This is already IANA's intent as we understand it, so this is really just a manner of documenting policy. 3) Whether there's still need for an announcement list for registry changes, given that the XML file should now be available on the IANA Web site. The proposed changes remove this from the specification, but leave the possibility of future use of such a list open. Any feedback from the HTML community would be most appreciated; we're working to resolve this and get the RFC published ASAP. Cheers, On 16/09/2010, at 5:18 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > Hi Mark, > > If you want, you can update the existing Change Proposalon this topic with whichever of the information below you think is relevant. Also, hopefully any new testing will take less than a month, so we'll have that info available once all proposals are submitted. > > Regards, > Maciej > > > On Sep 15, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > >> Hi Sam, >> >> Thanks for the heads-up. >> >> A couple of points: >> >> - AIUI Michael is still in the process of testing the registry, and has some action items to complete before those requests can continue. Please tell me if your understanding is different. >> >> - Ian's testing ran into an issue where some of his references were to his personal Web site; we didn't feel this met the bar for a stable reference. >> >> The underlying requirements are that if someone is hit by a bus, there's some process in place for continuity (such as would be the case with a community Web site, but not a personal one), and that there's a some sense that the specifications, if they change, will do so in a way that won't invalidate current uses. >> >> E.g., if someone from the Microformats community wanted to register a new relation tomorrow that's documented on that site, the reference shouldn't be an issue. >> >> - Likewise, Ian's testing ran into another issue whereby their references were to the WHAT-WG site, rather than the W3C. We asked for clarification from the W3C, and based upon that discussion refused registration, because the W3C is doing active work in this area. This is the only reason those requests were refused. >> >> - It's been our intent for a while to set up a Web site to aid in the registration of link relations (and perhaps other IANA registries). There's pretty broad agreement that the process is difficult to understand for people who don't do it every day, so the idea is to "overlay" the IANA process with Web forms, bug queues, etc. so that people can understand what they need to do as well as the status of their request easily. I'd stress that the idea here is not to replace the processes defined for the various registries, but just to make them more user-friendly (e.g., it shouldn't be necessary to subscribe to the mailing list). >> >> We've just started work on this site; if anyone in the HTML community would like to help (in big or small ways), we'd welcome it very much; please ping me for more info. >> >> Cheers, >> >> P.S. If this doesn't get through to the mailing list, could you please forward it? Thanks. >> >> >> On 16/09/2010, at 12:48 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: >> >>> On 02/23/2010 11:31 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>>> >>>> So it seems like we have rough consensus on this proposal, and also >>>> rough consensus to test the new registry before adopting it. Currently >>>> the owner if this issue is listed as "Chairs": >>>> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-027>. We do not >>>> want to have an issue on our hands indefinitely, where the actual next >>>> action is not ours. >>>> >>>> Therefore, we would like to ask for a volunteer to take the action to >>>> test the registry. Given the estimated time frames for this registry, >>>> that action would have a due date 5-6 weeks from now. If we do not find >>>> a volunteer within a week, we will proceed with a Call for Consensus on >>>> this Change Proposal. >>> >>> Much has happened since Maciej sent this email. The registry was established. Testing occurred. People differ as to how the results from that testing should be interpreted. >>> >>> At the present time, we continue to have only one change proposal. At this time, the chairs are requesting counter proposals. If no counter proposals are received by October 17th, we will proceed with a call for consensus on the proposal that we do have: >>> >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1006.html >>> >>> - Sam Ruby >> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ >> > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 05:27:16 UTC