W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > December 2003

RE: Sect 6 - References

From: Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:25:04 -0000
Message-ID: <54A600C436EA694581B93E4BD4D4788A06B73E47@elslonexc004.eslo.co.uk>
To: "'Ian B. Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: "'public-webarch-comments@w3.org'" <public-webarch-comments@w3.org>


> For the moment, we don't distinguish between normative/informative
> references because there is no conformance to this document. 

Hmm - good point. Was just mindful that DanC had mothballed that URI web
page (and also traded it in for a newer 'sexed-up' wiki model). And then
looking at the document I kind of wondered what a new reader would make of
it all. No distinction between REC, CR, WIP, etc. They would all pass
themselves off as authoritative. Whereas some docs have received
considerable scrutiny. Though as you say, there is no conformance
requirements.

Your suggestion looks interesting and I will noodle on it. Perhaps useful to
relegate the Internet side of things to a general infrastructural level.

Tony



-----Original Message-----
From: Ian B. Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
Sent: 10 December 2003 18:32
To: Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)
Cc: 'public-webarch-comments@w3.org'
Subject: Re: Sect 6 - References


On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 12:22, Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote:
> Hi:
> 
> Note that in Sect 6.1 the following reference under [IANASchemes] is to a
> self-confessed retired page:
> 
> 	"Dan Connolly's list of URI schemes is a useful resource for finding
> out which references define various URI schemes."
> 
> Would it be appropriate to distingush between normative and non-normative
> (i.e. informative) references? If so, then the following would be an
example
> of a normative reference
> 
> 	"IANA's online registry of URI Schemes is available at
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes."
> 
> while the Connolly resource (were it not retired) would be an informative
> reference.

Tony,

For the moment, we don't distinguish between normative/informative
references because there is no conformance to this document. 

I think that the current organization of the references may be
confusing. We do intend to have a list of architectural references
(6.2). Section 6.1 used to be the list of normative references, but
then we eliminated conformance. "Internet Specifications" is not
a useful title for 6.1.

My sense (this morning) is that we should have two lists:

 a) References
 b) Architectural References

Thoughts?

 _ Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     +1 718 260-9447
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2003 14:25:53 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 10 December 2003 14:25:54 EST