Re: Options for link extensibility

[Graham <dtcd@xxxxxxx>]

On 18 Oct 2004, at 9:33 pm, Tim Bray wrote:

> LE2 Registry:  The types of links are in a (presumably IANA) registry, 
> which can be extended using a well-understood process.

I don't like this at all. No one will use it, and it basically requires 
consensus in the group that the extensibility mechanism in XML is a 
failure, when I think it's actually dead good.

> LE3 URIs:  Non-centralized extensibility is achieved by using URIs to 
> name types of links.

+1 if there's a sensible way to do it (Robert's yesterday is the only 
way I've seen)

> If people think it's a good idea, we could run a -1/0/+1 survey on the 
> wiki (I'd be "0" on all four). If people want to speak up and argue 
> that one of these options is substantially better than all the others, 
> that would be appropriate: please include LE0, LE1, LE2, or LE3 in 
> your subject line.  If such an argument gets a lot of support and 
> little opposition, we can discard a bunch of the Paces and move to 
> focus on the syntax.

-1000 to a vote. I don't like the way you've set this up since my 
support/objection depends almost entirely to which syntax we choose.

Graham

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature