Bjoern, I'm not interested in a game of process nomics. rel=disclosure has been in actual and continuous use in highly stable documents for almost 10 years now; a very quick search turns up early usage in late 2002. As far as I can tell, it starts to show up as a "suggestion" in the W3C publication rules some time between April and September 2002. That predates the Web Linking spec (and its creation of the current relationship value registry) by about 8 years. The draft before the IETF now started out as inspired by and documenting the existing usage. That is a very welcome and useful thing to do. The proposal is now — in last call — changing into "hey, let's actually redefine the usage of that link relationship, W3C will just follow." I think that that is an unwise step unless you actually have buy-in from those who build the current W3C tool-chain, and from those who maintain the current set of documents. The very least I'd expect is that those who propose the change make an effort to get in touch with the current users of the link relationship. Posting an idea to ietf@xxxxxxxx is not a good way to do so. Further, I think that it will be pretty unlikely that we'll make changes to Recommendations and other publications going back over 10 years to accommodate the proposed new usage. Speaking personally, -1 to the proposed change of semantics. Speaking as liaison, I've already pointed you at the appropriate people to ask for review. This being an individual, informational draft, I think it's fair to expect the submitter to go and secure the appropriate review. Regards, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@xxxxxx> (@roessler) On 2012-01-01, at 17:13 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Thomas Roessler wrote: >> On 2012-01-01, at 15:51 +0100, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: >>> * Thomas Roessler wrote: >>>> Before these steps have happened, it would appear premature to me to >>>> request publication of this document as an RFC. > >> Neither the intention to last call the draft, nor the proposed >> incompatible change were announced to that list. > > So what is the point of order you are trying to raise? Registering the > link relation pretty much requires publication of the draft as RFC, so > the intent should be implicit, and given the length of the draft, and > my review comments, the timing should be rather clear to anyone who > cared aswell, so I don't see how the request for publication was prema- > ture. > > If you only want to make sure interested parties are aware of the state > of the discussion around the document, you can just tell them, like I > did when I copied my review comments to spec-prod, or point this thread > out to W3C's IETF Liaison so they can spread the word for you. > -- > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@xxxxxxxxxxxx · 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf