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 17985 - 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 WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: contributor
URL: http://whatwg.org/c#the-link-element
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-07-18 07:28 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2012-07-23 03:57 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description contributor 2012-07-18 07:28:58 UTC
This was was cloned from bug 13068 as part of operation convergence.
Originally filed: 2011-06-27 12:29:00 +0000
Original reporter: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

================================================================================
 #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).
================================================================================
 #1   Aryeh Gregor                                    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.)
================================================================================
 #2   Julian Reschke                                  2011-06-27 18:10:41 +0000 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use cases are those that do not require standardization, such as private use, or augmented HTML targeted at specific consumers.
================================================================================
 #4   Ian 'Hixie' Hickson                             2011-08-16 04:51:59 +0000 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.)
================================================================================
 #5   Julian Reschke                                  2011-08-25 15:15:48 +0000 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/170
================================================================================
 #6   Sam Ruby                                        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
================================================================================