* Thomas Roessler wrote:
thank you for working on this draft. Before you try to get a
specification through Last Call that's possibly at odds with the current
(and as far as I know original) use of the link relationship, it would
perhaps be useful to talk to the current users of this particular link
relationship, and request their review of the specification, and find
out their views on the proposed change to its semantics.
A good place to reach many of the interested parties would be the
spec-prod(_at_)w3(_dot_)org mailing list.
Also, I'd recommend that you contact Ian Jacobs, W3C's head of
communications; he's in charge of the detailed publication requirements
for W3C specifications.
Before these steps have happened, it would appear premature to me to
request publication of this document as an RFC.
If Ian Jacobs is responsible for the things discussed on spec-prod, I'd
think he reads that mailing list, and the mailing list has been aware
of the draft since the first version has been published in October 2011,
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2011OctDec/0008.html>.
What might be useful is to ask W3C's IETF Liaison what W3C's policy is
with respect to registration of link relations W3C makes up and uses on
its web site. The Internet Community shouldn't really have to clean up
after the W3C to ensure proper registration of link relations W3C uses.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern(_at_)hoehrmann(_dot_)de ·
http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf