8793 2010-01-21 14:50:38 +0000 registration procedure for@rel values 2011-04-13 00:31:24 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED FIXED http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#other-link-types WGDecision P2 normal --- 8735 1 julian.reschke ian contributor ian mike mjs public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking rubys public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 31155 0 julian.reschke 2010-01-21 14:50:38 +0000 5.12.3.19 currently says: "Extensions to the predefined set of link types may be registered in the WHATWG Wiki RelExtensions page. [WHATWGWIKI]" That page currently defines the registration procedure as "For the "Status" section to be changed to "Accepted", the proposed keyword must either have been through the Microformats process, and been approved by the Microformats community; or must be defined by a W3C specification in the Candidate Recommendation or Recommendation state. If it fails to go through this process, it is "Rejected"." I think the registry procedure needs to be defined in the HTML5 spec itself (note that this orthogonal to the discussion about what the procedure actually is). 31905 1 ian 2010-02-13 11:29:02 +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: Partially Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: Let's revisit this once the issue regarding the new registry has been resolved. (I don't want to spend lots of time inventing a process only to have that process be redundant.) In general I don't know that I agree that the process should be in the spec, or even that there should be that much of an explicit process — it's the kind of thing that I feel a should evolve around a community, and need not be especially formal. However, I agree that even if that is the decision, the spec should be clear that that is the case and should certainly not give half a process and let the community contradict it, or anything like that, so this will definitely need revisiting once we know how the wider issue has been resolved. 34132 2 mjs 2010-03-30 03:41:53 +0000 Would it be fair to say this is covered by <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27>, and thus tag it TrackerIssue? It's true that it is technically orthogonal, but I believe the sole change proposal on the table for ISSUE-27 would resolve this. 34145 3 julian.reschke 2010-03-30 12:45:55 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > Would it be fair to say this is covered by > <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27>, and thus tag it TrackerIssue? > It's true that it is technically orthogonal, but I believe the sole change > proposal on the table for ISSUE-27 would resolve this. If we accept that change proposal, then yes, this bug becomes irrelevant. If we don't then we'll still have to address it separately. 34310 4 ian 2010-04-01 03:04:43 +0000 *** Bug 8097 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 34312 5 ian 2010-04-01 03:04:43 +0000 *** Bug 7585 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 34624 6 mjs 2010-04-07 01:03:41 +0000 Let's treat this as the bug for ISSUE-27, since other plausibly related bugs have been duped to this one: http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/27 47269 7 rubys 2011-04-08 14:22:46 +0000 Working Group Decision: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0204.html 47388 8 contributor 2011-04-13 00:31:24 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r6000. Check-in comment: apply wg decision http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=5999&to=6000