Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST "archives", was: NEW RELATION REQUEST

Julian Reschke <> Sun, 15 August 2010 16:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93B693A68A5 for <>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 09:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.25
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.251, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fBfzKlUyEQby for <>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 09:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id CDAA43A659C for <>; Sun, 15 Aug 2010 09:29:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2010 16:30:28 -0000
Received: from (EHLO []) [] by (mp067) with SMTP; 15 Aug 2010 18:30:28 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19ymIouUz9y7AAUXl2aFpSKxfEsadArSLtb7cpZ4T yGz+BW0O6sfEts
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 18:30:24 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100802 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Hickson <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: Re: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST "archives", was: NEW RELATION REQUEST
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:29:57 -0000

On 15.08.2010 18:11, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 10.08.2010 23:15, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> The template for this relation is in the specification as requested:
>> Sorry, I missed this request because it looked like a duplicate of the
>> one for "alternate". It would probably a good idea to add the name of
>> the actual relation to the subject line.
> The Web Linking specification says to use "NEW RELATION REQUEST".

And I had the impression you didn't like bureaucracy :-)

It says:

>    Registration requests should be sent to the [TBD] mailing
>    list, marked clearly in the subject line (e.g,.  "NEW RELATION
>    REQUEST").

That doesn't mean you can't add more information. IMHO.

>> Format-wise, the same comments apply as for "alternate".
> Could you elaborate? The only problem I recall regarding "alternate" was
> regarding the W3C being the previously-used reference for the keyword,
> which doesn't seem relevant here since it's not a registered keyword.

Indeed. I meant to refer to the thread about which spec to link to when 
both a WhatWG and a W3C spec define it -- 

As Mark wrote in 

> This registration is a bit unusual, in that you're registering using URIs, when the W3C -- an organisation that the IETF recognises as producing Open Standards --- as per RFC2026 -- is producing a specification that is substantially the same.
> While isn't necessarily precluded from meeting the prerequisites of Specification Required (and therefore making registrations), we want to make sure that this isn't conflicting with ongoing W3C work.
> As such I've CC:ed the W3C's liaisons to the IETF for their comment.

To which Philippe replied in 

> I see no reason here why the registration cannot point to the W3C
> specification. The W3C HTML Working Group is producing the specification
> for HTML, and pointing to somewhere would undermine the current process
> and effort happening within W3C.

So optimally, the W3C and the WHATWG would come back to us with a 
recommendation what spec to cite. Extra points if it's the same for all 
relations defined in HTML5.

Best regards, Julian