Mark Nottingham: I think this sort of thing is going to happen more often, not less. Microsoft and Netscape unilaterally extended the Web with MARQUEE and BLINK, and it was ugly, but the impact wasn’t nearly as bad as countless Web developers all extending the Web in their own way could be. The onus is clearly upon organisations like the W3C and IETF to make themselves as transparent and approachable to developers as possible, so that the latent experience and expertise in them can be drawn upon by these innovators, instead of being seen as either irrelevant or impediments.
If transparency and approachability are the solutions, then we need something radically more transparent and approachable than a wiki page. Now that’s a sobering thought.
Mark Nottingham: I think this sort of thing is going to happen more often, not less. Microsoft and Netscape unilaterally extended the Web with MARQUEE and BLINK, and it was ugly, but the impact wasn’t nearly as bad as countless Web developers all extending the Web in their own way could be. The onus is clearly upon organisations like the W3C and IETF to make themselves as transparent and approachable to developers as possible, so that the latent experience and expertise in them can be drawn upon by these innovators, instead of being seen as either irrelevant or impediments.
Observations:
rel=canonical
didn’t consult the wiki, and I see no evidence that they considered the overlap with rel=self
(which also wasn’t in the registry at the time, in fact it still isn’t now).rev
, it omitted it.Analysis:
rev
.Twitter (the apparent raison d’être for this function) doesn’t yet support this
It seems to me that the apparent raison d'être for this function are bars. like digg bar, facebook bar, etc...
there has been some controversy about bars lately :
The most popular search engine in Russia - yandex.ru (yet actually better for Russia than Google.RU) ignores any rel =...
They use own labels, such as:
nofollow = <noindex> </ noindex> :)