W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2011

Change Proposal for ISSUE-177, was: ISSUE-177 ietf-id-wip: Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 15:59:10 +0200
Message-ID: <4E91A8AE.8010506@gmx.de>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
CC: HTML WG LIST <public-html@w3.org>
On 2011-09-28 01:47, Sam Ruby wrote:
> ...

Here's the Change Proposal:

SUMMARY

The HTML5 spec currently cites IETF Internet Drafts just like any other 
document.

However, Internet Drafts come with the disclaimer:

    Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
    and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
    time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
    material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

There's no reason for the HTML5 spec not doing this.

RATIONALE

In addition to the simple fact described above, marking drafts as such 
will help reviewers better understand that the referenced document is 
work-in-progress, helping preventing things from progressing on the Rec 
track while having a normative reference to a document that's not suited 
as normative reference. See <http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/#sniff>.

DETAILS

-- BEGIN DIFF
72437c72437
<    'about' URI scheme</a></cite>, J. Holsten, L. Hunt. IETF.</dd>
---
 >    'about' URI scheme</a></cite>, J. Holsten, L. Hunt. IETF. Work in 
Progress.</dd>
72641c72641
<    B. H&ouml;hrmann. IETF.</dd>
---
 >    B. H&ouml;hrmann. IETF. Work in Progress.</dd>
72677c72677
<    <dd><cite><a 
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-origin">The Web 
Origin Concept</a></cite>, A. Barth. IETF.</dd>
---
 >    <dd><cite><a 
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-origin">The Web 
Origin Concept</a></cite>, A. Barth. IETF. Work in Progress.</dd>
-- END DIFF


IMPACT

1. Positive Effects

IETF Internet Drafts referenced as specified by their publisher. 
References to things that are work-in-progress become more easy to spot.

2. Negative Effects

None.

3. Conformance Classes Changes

None.

4. Risks

None.


REFERENCES

None.
Received on Sunday, 9 October 2011 13:59:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:40 GMT