- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:56:53 -0800
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Mark, On Feb 17, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > On 17/02/2010, at 8:53 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> So if you want to test with a link relation that could apply to >> Atom as well, go ahead. rel=canonical seems to be a good candidate, >> having multiple implementations already (right?). > > > Well, yes, but that wouldn't test the new procedures, which I think > is the point. > > Also, since canonical was IIRC a collaboration between several > companies, they should work together on the registration... The plan to test the new procedures was discussed on #html-wg, and I noticed that there is no allowance in your draft for provisional registration; all registrations are full registrations and require a specification. By comparison: - Header Fields have a mechanism for provisional registration per http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3864.txt - URI schemes have a mechanism for provisional registration per http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4395.txt - MIME types have vendor, personal and experimental trees that serve a similar role to provisional registration per http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4288.txt This is not an objection, because I must admit I have no strong feelings on this issue. But I wonder if this is intentional or an oversight? It seems like many other IANA-maintained registries of values that are relevant to Web content have some sort of form of lesser registration that bypasses the firm "Specification Required" mandate, allowing values that are in actual use to be registered provisionally even if no one has written a proper spec yet. It seems to me like this would be useful for rel values as well. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 11:57:27 UTC