[standardizedFieldValues-51] new issue on deploying new terms, media types, properties, elements, etc.

The TAG accepted a new issue standardizedFieldValues-51 on 19 Apr 2005

largely based on the request I made 6 Apr...

new issue? squatting on link relationship names, x-tokens,registries,
and URI-based extensibility

Any comments on the issue are welcome.

Some observations on existing practice and opinion:

* media types aren't clearly grounded in URI space at all.
See also:

uriMediaType-9 : Why does the Web use mime types and not URIs?

* The IETF seems to use URNs for new XML namespaces.
See also:

URNsAndRegistries-50: URNs for namespace names used in XML formats

* Some people think grounding XML terms in URI space is a bad idea

"The decision to identify XML namespaces with URIs was an architectural
mistake that has caused much suffering for XML users and needless
complexity for XML tools. "
 -- http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2005/04/13/namespace-uris.html

* Atom seems to have gotten it "right" lately...

If a name is given,
   implementations MUST consider the link relation type to be equivalent
   to the same name registered within the IANA Registry of Link
   Relations Section 7, and thus the IRI that would be obtained by
   appending the value of the rel attribute to the string
 -- http://xml.coverpages.org/draft-ietf-atompub-format-08.txt

hmm... or did it? "Note that use of
a relative reference is not allowed."

* I have talked with the folks doing Microformats like

about grounding their terms in URI space; I'm not sure
how much they like the idea.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 16:39:14 UTC