Subject: [link-relations] NEW RELATION REQUEST

From: Ian Hickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:17:14 +0000 (UTC)

The template for this relation is in the specification as requested:

   http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#rel-alternate-registration

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

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:12:23 +0200

>     http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#rel-alternate-registration

(beware - do not open with performance challenged UAs such as FF 3.x :-)

This actually is an update for an existing registration. Looking at the 
text from HTML4 and the current text I do not see a problem with the update.

That being said, as the original registration refers to an W3C spec, I'd 
expect the update to do so as well.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Ian Hickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:11:09 +0000 (UTC)

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> This actually is an update for an existing registration. Looking at the text
> from HTML4 and the current text I do not see a problem with the update.
> 

Ok, updated.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:47:46 +0200

It's now:

> This is the registration template for this value in the Link Relations registry: [IANALINKTYPE]
> Relation Name:
> alternate
> Description:
> Gives alternate representations of the current document, provides a link to a syndication feed, or modifies the meaning of other link relations, depending on context.
> Reference:
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#rel-alternate
> Notes:
> (none)
> Application Data:
> (none)

(side note: just because it should be in the spec doesn't mean it 
doesn't *also* make sense to post it here).

That being said, I'm fine with this registration if it actually refers 
to the W3C Working Draft (that is, <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/>).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Ian Hickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:26:44 +0000 (UTC)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > > text
> > Gives alternate representations of the current document, provides a link to
> > a syndication feed, or modifies the meaning of other link relations,
> > depending on context.
> > Reference:
> (side note: just because it should be in the spec doesn't mean it doesn't
> *also* make sense to post it here).
> 
> That being said, I'm fine with this registration if it actually refers to the
> W3C Working Draft (that is, <http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/>).

So to be clear, you are rejecting this registration unless it references 
the out-of-date snapshot document on the W3C site rather than either the 
WHATWG document or the current W3C document? (So in particular, you are 
rejecting this registration at least until the next snapshot publication?)

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:06:49 +0200

On 11.08.2010 11:26, Ian Hickson wrote:
> ...
>> W3C Working Draft (that is,<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/>).
>
>...

I haven't rejected anything. I'm saying that the registration should 
point to a stable document in W3C space, and I don't think the "current 
editor's copy" qualifies as that.

What's the problem with waiting with the actual registration until the 
new WD is out?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Ian Hickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:34:16 +0000 (UTC)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
> > > 
> > > That being said, I'm fine with this registration if it actually 
> > > refers to the W3C Working Draft (that 
> > > is,<http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/>).
> > 
> > So to be clear, you are rejecting this registration unless it 
> > references the out-of-date snapshot document on the W3C site rather 
> > than either the WHATWG document or the current W3C document? (So in 
> > particular, you are rejecting this registration at least until the 
> > next snapshot publication?) ...
> 

The TR/ page drafts are out-of-date obsolete drafts. We shouldn't be using 
them as a reference, as they are almost by definition known to be 
incorrect. (I don't believe we have ever published a TR/ draft of this 
specification that was up-to-date when it was published.) I would 
definitely not consider it acceptable to have the registration point to a 
document that is known to be wrong.

It's not clear what benefit it would bring, either. That draft is no more 
stable (it changes frequently), it's no more representative of consensus 
(we have always had more outstanding known issues when publishing than 
the contemporary editor's draft), and it is technically inferior (again, 
it has always been published with more known issues).