- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:09:21 +0100
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- 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 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. 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>. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 13:10:00 UTC