- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:54:34 +0200
- To: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- CC: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 2011-06-23 23:15, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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 Tantek, what's the next step now? Should I go ahead and edit the Wiki page? Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 09:55:03 UTC