Re: "index" link relation (ISSUE-118)

Tantek Çelik, Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:21:42 -0700:

> I was unable to follow Leif's reasoning - especially as it didn't
> cite/quote anything from the spec or the decisions.

I gladly spell it out for you.

Firstly, it documented that it is impossible to follow the reasoning 
behind your Microformats registratios. The registrations link to the 
ISSUE-118 check-in, but without actually registering the outcome of 
ISSUE-118: [1]

> You purport to have removed what the the working 
> group decision "dropped". But actually you haven't. The Editor's 
> check-in comment, which is the result of the the comment by Maciej that 
> you were linking to, is useful reading in that regard: [1]
> 
> ]] Drop support for rel=up, rel=last, rel=index, rel=first, **and any 
> related synonyms**. [[

Secondly, here are the two decisions citations that you jumped over:

> First citation: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0204.html

> 
> ]]  the HTML Working Group hereby adopts the "Defer to the
> Microformats community for cataloging HTML rel values" [[

(Note the wording "defer to".)

> Second citation:  
> 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Feb/att-0481/issue-118-decision.html 
> 
> ]] No objection explained why registration as extensions was 
> insufficient, and such registration would allow more time and freedom 
> to fine-tune the definitions of these relations, independent of the 
> HTML WG.
> 
> Decision of the Working Group
> 
> Therefore, the HTML Working Group hereby decides to adopt the proposal 
> to drop support for rel="" values based on the lack of interest from 
> implementors and users. [[

(Note how the decision explicitly mentions the option of registering 
ISSUE-118 relations in another registry. And note as well the wording 
"freedom to fine-tune the definitions, independen tof the HTML WG".)

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0349

-- 
Leif Halvard Silli

Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 09:14:02 UTC