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

Ian Hickson <> Mon, 16 August 2010 18:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90F63A69FB for <>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.475
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.475 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YGTVILhFD4Hz for <>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BDFF3A6853 for <>; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E40B8C065; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=date:from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references:mime-version: content-type; q=dns;; b=PV44CEtdlYdvniE/4KFyTr+BQDD5e 8J3WQiT+NJyzkcK4s3GW25UP2AnwA3EgSbZYxPNYna1ljoepJqFZRLyGQxirrb9I zZDrxVzI1f9sRZKWKGGd5OHdU4KqOE87zfD4NZYmk3fmbOt86lS/RA7H6eqz01LU 03mHq/O/6WJH9g=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=date:from:to :cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references:mime-version: content-type;; bh=IACR0lp/0279RTpjxcV1KZTdhgM=; b=Gn7 mgigtxhb2fKUgXND0p8M6b+UB5El8vFVaLaM9qo9fjVBRLhKkRb9RYoQnonv8oDu RGSdSauaZm7N5ZHdtdyu8LnI7vk18STYlvw8l9InY3azzv1LfHTjk5C+1ZSMu9z8 ZvUntwTtt539sJft8rXklopaV6stXjvctjOPTNzA=
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 599418C05F; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:09:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ian Hickson <>
To: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Content-Language: en-GB-hixie
Content-Style-Type: text/css
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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 18:09:06 -0000

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       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'