Re: [link-relations] NEW APP DATA

Bjoern Hoehrmann <> Tue, 10 August 2010 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393363A69B2 for <>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:43:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.699, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V7gdRtjIwZpO for <>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id C22013A67B1 for <>; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2010 20:44:16 -0000
Received: from (EHLO hive) [] by (mp060) with SMTP; 10 Aug 2010 22:44:16 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19soigRf0BsTqEcfBy6B5k9SwrfOLy3eZ3OrZWCZK ChKZW7kGmyZemF
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <>
To: Ian Hickson <>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:44:14 +0200
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <1281459315.701.260.camel@chacal> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW APP DATA
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:43:44 -0000

* Ian Hickson wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:

(As an aside, please be aware that folding many messages into one makes
it harder to follow parts of a thread that one is interested in, harder
to ignore parts one is not interested in, harder to restore the context
of what is being discussed, easier for participants to reiterate points
that have already been made without the appearance of flooding the list
and in your case violates RFC 5322 which discourages forming References
headers from multiple parents which your mail client does. Please count
me among those who'd prefer you'd follow established conventions.)

>I used the WHATWG URLs because the W3C doesn't publish a version of the 
>"complete.html" file that I used in the registration, and because the 
>WHATWG documents are generally more convenient to work with than the W3C 
>ones (e.g. it has bug filing tools, nicer styling, etc).

It is my understanding that this document is meant to be a stress test,
not an accessible specification. I believe you are well aware that this
version of your proposals locks up in many people's browser and I do not
see how a document, that is deliberately and unnecessarily made hard to
access, would be a suitable reference for the registry, if there are al-
ternatives available. It certainly locks up my browser of choice on any
computer I've ever used that was meant to support regular web browsing.
Björn Höhrmann · ·
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 ·
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 ·