13068 2011-06-27 12:29:17 +0000 for consistency with RFC 5988, link/@rel should allow extension relation types 2012-08-17 19:26:53 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified All All RESOLVED FIXED http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-link-element WGDecision P4 enhancement --- 1 julian.reschke travil ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking rubys travil public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 50364 0 julian.reschke 2011-06-27 12:29:17 +0000 For consistency with RFC 5988, the specification should allow "extension relation types" (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-4.2). Essentially that means making all relations using URI syntax be valid (and not requiring registration). 50373 1 ayg 2011-06-27 17:48:44 +0000 What are the use-cases? People can already register rel values on the wiki. Consistency with a preexisting RFC isn't a strong reason by itself. (If content depended on it, that might be a reason.) 50375 2 julian.reschke 2011-06-27 18:10:41 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > What are the use-cases? People can already register rel values on the wiki. > Consistency with a preexisting RFC isn't a strong reason by itself. (If > content depended on it, that might be a reason.) The use cases are those that do not require standardization, such as private use, or augmented HTML targeted at specific consumers. 53771 3 mike 2011-08-04 05:17:09 +0000 mass-move component to LC1 55190 4 ian 2011-08-16 04:51:59 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Consistency with RFC 5988 isn't goal. Registering types is so trivial at this point that there's no need for an even easier mechanism. And of course we don't really want to encourage widespread proprietary values. (Privately used proprietary values are already possible without registering the type: just say it's ok and so long as all of you in your community agree, then it's ok. Same with any other extension to any other standard in the world.) 55801 5 julian.reschke 2011-08-25 15:15:48 +0000 Now http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/170 65832 6 rubys 2012-03-20 15:14:49 +0000 WG Decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Mar/0553.html Change Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Oct/0107.html 70432 7 contributor 2012-07-18 07:29:02 +0000 This bug was cloned to create bug 17985 as part of operation convergence. 72366 8 travil 2012-08-17 19:18:53 +0000 The Working Group decision for Issue 170 has been applied to the spec. Please review the change: https://github.com/w3c/html/commit/954203e085e601122a2df38207bfdd6d852a0963 Thanks 72367 9 travil 2012-08-17 19:26:53 +0000 To see the changes in context, please see: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-preview/links.html#concept-rel-extensions http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec-preview/infrastructure.html#extensibility