Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST - pingback

Mark Nottingham <> Mon, 16 August 2010 11:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360293A698B for <>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.277
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.678, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id URxP3lc0h4Sw for <>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C1763A68C8 for <>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E8F89509DA; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 07:12:29 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:12:25 +1000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ian Hickson <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST - pingback
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:12:05 -0000

You didn't answer my question, Ian. Have you considered publishing it through the W3C as a Working Group Note? 

Last I checked, all you need is consensus in the WG to publish the note.

Alternatively, you can, through your employer, get it published as a Member Submission.

Neither of these solutions would require editorial work, and only a minimum of process work. If that's not workable, you can (again) publish it as an RFC with minimal overhead (as described before). 

Yet another method of moving forward would be for a third party to do the work (either editorial or process) to get this published. However, the copyright statement in the document prevents this currently; would you be willing to let someone do this for you?

As this shows, there are plenty of low-overhead avenues for you to have the document published in a manner that's permanent and readily available. Doing so would also give you an opportunity to register the HTTP header you're using.

Although we haven't said so explicitly yet, the discussion has clearly led us to rejecting the request. I'm sympathetic to your goal of getting existing relations published, but the process needs to be observed -- for good reasons, even if you disagree with them.

If you decide to publish the document in one of the paths described above, or find an alternate venue you'd like us to consider, please re-submit the request. 


On 14/08/2010, at 6:05 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Ian, I understand that your argument is that even publishing it on your 
>> Web site makes it "permanent and readily available," since it is 
>> archived, copied by others, indexed by Google, etc. While that's good 
>> enough for your purposes, historically the IETF / RFC Editor have been 
>> reluctant to use URIs at all, much less URIs to personal Web sites to 
>> define protocols.
>> I notice that your document is in the W3C format -- have you considered 
>> sending it to them as a Member submission? Alternatively, I'd suggest 
>> reformatting as an Internet-Draft and submitting that.
> For all intents and purposes, there's nobody working on that spec. I just 
> wanted to register the relation because people use it and I figured 
> documenting that was an important part of the purpose of the registry. I 
> don't have the bandwidth to do anything with it beyond that.
> -- 
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
>       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Mark Nottingham