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

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

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:
>>>
>>>      http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#rel-archives-registration
>>
>> 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]@ietf.org 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 -- 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00022.html>.

As Mark wrote in 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00022.html>:

> This registration is a bit unusual, in that you're registering using whatwg.org 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 whatwg.org 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 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/current/msg00023.html>:

> 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