- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 12:21:12 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 07.04.2011 20:10, Edward O'Connor wrote: >> >> Julian wrote: >>>> >>>> Because we haven't got a spec that the designated experts (including >>>> myself) consider stable enough; note that this affect both content and >>>> location. >> >> Henri replied: >>> >>> This is ridiculous. The pingback spec has been stable in terms of both >>> content and location since 2002. >> >> Indeed. > > Yes. > >>> I think this should be treated as evidence that the procedures at IANA >>> (as implemented by the current Designated Experts at least) don't work. >> >> Agreed. I think any rel value registration procedure that would require >> the pingback spec's content *or location* to change is unacceptable. > > We have discussed this over and over. > > This registry (reminder: requirements differ by registry, and not all IANA > registries are the same) requires "Specification Required", which translates > to: > > Specification Required - Values and their meanings must be > documented in a permanent and readily available public > specification, in sufficient detail so that interoperability > between independent implementations is possible. When used, > Specification Required also implies use of a Designated > Expert, who will review the public specification and > evaluate whether it is sufficiently clear to allow > interoperable implementations. The intention behind > "permanent and readily available" is that a document can > reasonably be expected to be findable and retrievable long > after IANA assignment of the requested value. Publication > of an RFC is an ideal means of achieving this requirement, > but Specification Required is intended to also cover the > case of a document published outside of the RFC path. For > RFC publication, the normal RFC review process is expected > to provide the necessary review for interoperability, though > the Designated Expert may be a particularly well-qualified > person to perform such a review. > > ...for which a private web page isn't good enough (due to to "permanence" > requirement), but a web page run by a community (such as microformats.org) > might be. > > Just clarifying. I really don't think there is neither misunderstandings or disagreements about what is going on here. People just disagree about weather the IANA process in this case is good or not. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 19:22:10 UTC