Re: "index" link relation

On 2011-07-07 03:33, Tantek Çelik wrote:
>> Maciej,
>>
>> thanks for repeating this.
>
> Maciej, thanks for providing a URL and succinct specific quotes.

As far as I can tell, Maciej just repeated what I told you two weeks 
ago. But anyway.

>> Tantek, what's the next step now? I'm really trying to understand how the
>> registry is supposed to work.
>
> This is the first time we've had to deal with rel values that were
> implicitly obsoleted by being dropped from one version of a
> specification to another, yet were explicitly stated as ok to
> register.

Not true. You've been reading something into the decision that never was 
there. There was no "obsoletion" whatsoever.

> Lacking any explicit process for handling this case, I've gone ahead
> and documented such rel values in a new table [1]
>
> [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#dropped_without_prejudice
>
> with the straw proposal that any such values are registrable similar
> to new values that have never been specified which I believe reflects
> the intent behind the cited WG decision URL and quotes. Feel free to
> suggest an alternative on the microformats-discuss mailing list, or
> any improvements you think would be more acceptable to the working
> group.
 > ...

Thanks.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 07:29:57 UTC