- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:19:24 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "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 Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:09:21 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 17.02.2010 13:59, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:55:10 +0100, Julian Reschke >> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >>> - 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). >> >> To be frank, only a few would mint URLs. The rest will keep continue >> doing what they always did, and rightly so. Using URLs as rel values >> would be extremely cumbersome. > > I agree that many people ignore registries, no matter how simple they > are. Why? Because they can get away with it. Yeah, and I'm totally cool with that. I just want the registry to reflect what is out there. > For those who actually do care, I think using something in a vendor > namespace is *very* similar* to using a URI. > > See, for instance, > <http://docs.oasis-open.org/cmis/CMIS/v1.0/cd06/cmis-spec-v1.0.html#_Toc243905525>. Uh, yuk? -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 13:20:05 UTC