This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 13068 - for consistency with RFC 5988, link/@rel should allow extension relation types
Summary: for consistency with RFC 5988, link/@rel should allow extension relation types
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LC1 HTML5 spec (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P4 enhancement
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Travis Leithead [MSFT]
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview...
Whiteboard:
Keywords: WGDecision
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-06-27 12:29 UTC by Julian Reschke
Modified: 2012-08-17 19:26 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description Julian Reschke 2011-06-27 12:29:17 UTC 
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).
Comment 1 Aryeh Gregor 2011-06-27 17:48:44 UTC 
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.)
Comment 2 Julian Reschke 2011-06-27 18:10:41 UTC 
(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.
Comment 3 Michael[tm] Smith 2011-08-04 05:17:09 UTC 
mass-move component to LC1
Comment 4 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2011-08-16 04:51:59 UTC 
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.)
Comment 5 Julian Reschke 2011-08-25 15:15:48 UTC 
Now http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/170
Comment 7 contributor 2012-07-18 07:29:02 UTC 
This bug was cloned to create bug 17985 as part of operation convergence.
Comment 8 Travis Leithead [MSFT] 2012-08-17 19:18:53 UTC 
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