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

[Ian Hickson <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> You didn't answer my question, Ian. Have you considered publishing it 
> through the W3C as a Working Group Note?

The only work I plan on doing to the Pingback specification is adding 
links to translations as people write them (four so far). I have no 
interest in doing anything else. I'm certainly not going to spend the time 
to rewrite it in another format, or try to wrangle it into a form the W3C 
pubteam would accept, and so on, just so that we can register the link 
relation. The specification is fine as it is, and people are using the 
link relation with no trouble.

I'm happy to send an e-mail or fill in a form or edit a page or some such 
to register the relation, in the interests of documenting reality. 
However, there is really no benefit to doing any more than that.

I have very little doubt that I am alone in this. I think the suggestions 
to change where the spec is published shows a view of the importance of 
the link relation registry that is at odds with the view that most people 
minting link relations will have.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'