Re: "index" link relation

On 2011-06-23 23:03, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 13:47, Leif Halvard Silli
> <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  wrote:
>> Tantek Çelik, Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:03:59 -0700:
>>> I personally am not opposed to 'index' in particular (I've used it in
>>> the past).
>>>
>>> However, I strongly prefer that we follow at least some sort of
>>> rational/scientific methodology in such iterations so as to provide
>>> objective (repeatable) reasoning of our actions, decisions, changes.
>>>
>>> So far I've been using the data available to reason how to treat
>>> existing or previous rel values.
>>>
>>> In short:
>>> * if a rel value was in a draft and is missing (without explanation)
>>> from the final spec, or
>>> * if a rel value was in a previous version of and is missing (without
>>> explanation) from an update to the specification (even a draft update)
>>
>> A repeatable, objective criteria: HTML5 doesn't per se decide what goes
>> into the Microformat registry. Rather, it is the opposite way. The
>> Microformats registry is supposed to be the one which forms the basis
>> for whether a link relation may pass the door to the HTML5
>> specification.
>
> cite/link to HTML5 spec text or WG decision text that supports this
> "supposed to be" assertion?

That's usually the point of a registry.

As such, I disagree with what Leif said as well: "The Microformats 
registry is supposed to be the one which forms the basis for whether a 
link relation may pass the door to the HTML5 specification."

No! Usually the point of a registry is to *decouple* the container 
format from the definitions of extensions. Once you have a working 
registry, you don't need to include values into the base spec, except 
for those which *need* to be defined there.

For instance, HTTP does have a registry for status codes. We don't 
*need* to include them into the base spec, unless they are somehow 
"special".

> ...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Thursday, 23 June 2011 21:16:13 UTC