W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Reference to the HTML specification

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:03:02 +0200
Message-ID: <4E65C5A6.4070903@gmx.de>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
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 2011-09-06 01:02, Ian Hickson wrote:
> 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 I do see that it's a problem when people use outdated specs; but maybe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.

Not helpful, I was referring to Internet drafts.

> 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

Yes, that's a problem.

> no canonical URL, RFCs claiming things that are completely bogus, etc.

They do have a canonical URL (just not a good one).

> 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

I think that's a feature.

> 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.

Because you were using the publication process in a way it's not 
designed for.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 07:03:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT