- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:15:55 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 17.02.2010 14:04, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > ... >> My 2 cents: >> >> - I've been following the discussions (as document shepherd), and I >> don't believe the question ever came up before >> >> - One of the reasons it may not have been raised is that link relation >> types do not *need* to be registered; you can always use a URI you >> control (that would address the vendor namespace, for instance). > > That would address vendor namespaces, but not registration of rel values > you find arleady in active use by third parties. Yes, that's what I just said :-). >> That's not entirely true, for instance the requirements for >> provisional URI schemes are: >> >> 3. Guidelines for Provisional URI Scheme Registration >> >> >> While the guidelines in Section 2 are REQUIRED for permanent >> registration, they are RECOMMENDED for provisional registration. For >> a provisional registration, the following are REQUIRED: > > RECOMMENDED is a lower level of requirement than REQUIRED (a SHOULD, not > a MUST). I have no problem with a universal SHOULD-level requirement. > It's just not clear to me that when you can't meet it, the rel value > should remain completely unregistered. I'm aware of that. I was just trying to point out that "provisional" doesn't mean "anything goes". >> o The scheme name meets the syntactic requirements of Section 2.8. >> o There is not already an entry with the same URI scheme name. (In >> the unfortunate case that there are multiple, different uses of >> the same scheme name, the IESG may approve a request to modify an >> existing entry to note the separate use.) >> o Contact information identifying the person supplying the >> registration is included. Previously unregistered URI schemes >> discovered in use may be registered by third parties on behalf of >> those who created the URI scheme; in this case, both the >> registering party and the scheme creator SHOULD be identified. > > This bullet is exactly the kind of thing I think ought to be allowed, > but effectively is not (unless you are able to reverse engineer a spec > for the rel value). I don't see how this is disallowed for "rel". Write a spec, and request registration. What you can't do is specify somebody else as relation creator without their agreement. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 13:16:43 UTC