Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-118 broken-link-types

On 01.03.2011 08:25, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 28.02.2011 23:14, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> Here is the decision. It has been drafted in HTML format to aid readability.
>>> ...
>> I think it would be good to clarify which relations will be affected.
>> It appears that the original CP<>  was about:
>> 	"top", "first", "start", "contents", "ToC" and "index"
>> while the accepted CP<>  mentions to drop:
>> 	"index, up, first, last"
>> I'm not opposed to drop things from HTML5, in particular when they have better definitions elsewhere.
>> The question of validity will come up again anyway (ISSUE-27).
>> However, it seems that the accepted proposal suggests not changing a few of the relations about what the ISSUE originally was opened; we may have to revisit them.
> The Change Proposal adopted is this:<>. Its Details section says:
>>>> Remove all prose relating to the following link types: index, up, first,  last.

OK; the IANA link relations registry had pending (re-)registrations for 
these ones; I have updated the entries <> 
accordingly, and will close the requests as "declined" once the spec 

All of these were already in the registry, as per Atom/HTML4.01, see 

> This would include, by my understanding, removal of the Synonyms sections of those definitions, which include the synonyms "top", "contents", "toc", "begin", "start" and "end".

For these, we (== IANA link relations expert reviewers) did not have 
registration requests.

Some of these however are already in the registry:

Refers to a table of contents.

Refers to the first resource in a collection of resources.

BR, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2011 16:17:21 UTC