- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 23:02:22 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, Jarred Nicholls <jarred@extjs.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Julian Reschke wrote: > > I do see that it's a problem when people use outdated specs; but maybe > the problem is not the being "dated", but how they are published. As far > as I can tell, there's not nearly as much confusion on the IETF side of > things, where Internet Drafts actually come with an Expiration Date. Things are even worse on the IETF side, with RFCs that have been long obsoleted by newer RFCs having no clear indication of such, RFCs having no canonical URL, RFCs claiming things that are completely bogus, etc. Plus, IDs expire, which makes things even worse, since it means you can't have stability _by design_ unless you're willing to commit to the text being fixed. Plus, when someone actually tries to publish regular updates, as I did with the WebSocket draft, people complain that it's being updated! No, the IETF situation is far worse. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 23:04:11 UTC