- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 11:39:57 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 02:51:37 +0100, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> > wrote: >> I'm wondering if a broader look at the role of registries >> in the web architecture, in the face of various deployment >> models, might give us some better insights about how to address >> the problems: >> >> registered namespaces: URI schemes, HTTP headers, link >> relations, xpointer tokens, MIME types >> standards-track-only namespaces: element & attribute names >> in any particular HTML/XML language, HTTP error codes... >> >> Requirements: >> * longevity & reliability of the registration information >> * process for maintaining technical requirements for registered >> values >> * ease of registering new values, even when they don't >> meet technical requirements >> * technical, social, security review of registered entries >> * avoiding registration spam, drift of control >> * avoiding incompatible use of registered values in >> different contexts >> * dealing with trademarks > > I think this would be a very valuable exercise. agree > an X prefix. > this is maybe because there is a community behind these that feels responsible Anne, I think the above two points hit the nail on the head, drop the X- prefixes and get a community who feels responsible / can review*, that would (imo) fix the problems with the registries for mime types, headers and all else related - well said. * no disrespect to Ned Freed et al, another few Neds would be good to have though! Best, Nathan
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 11:40:58 UTC