W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wiki-dev@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: W3C (Harvard) References (was Re: Footnotes?)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:31:44 -0500
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, W3C OWL Chairs <team-owl-chairs@w3.org>, public-wiki-dev@w3.org, sysreq@w3.org
Message-Id: <A1019535-742B-4D2C-A5B5-87426FAA08B7@gmail.com>
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>

Looks pretty nice!

Minor: The [] would normally be part of the link.
Nicety: The footnote version uses a ^ to link back to the place that  
cited the reference.

If OK by Bijan, it's good for me.

-Alan

On Nov 19, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>
>> On Nov 19, 2007, at 5:24 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry to be pesky today, but I'm wondering if it's possible to
>>> enable footnote support:
>>> 	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes
>>>
>>> (basically <ref>...</ref> and <references/>)
>>>
>>> I feel a pretty strong desire for them in:
>>> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Numerics
>>> and they could be handy for linking to use cases or email that
>>> support a feature.
>>>
>>> I can simulate them, of course, but I figured if it were an easy
>>> toggle to flip, might as well ask!
>
> Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> +1 for footnotes. Needs an extension installed: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php
>
> There's more to this issue, which is why I haven't done it yet.  I  
> dove
> into it some week ago, got tangled in the weeds, and haven't made it
> back.  In the process of writing this, though, I guess I've sorted it
> out.
>
> The problem with 'Cite' is that it supports only numeric referencing,
> not "Harvard referencing".   Wikipedia has some pages about this...
>
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes
>
> I think Harvard referencing is the preferred approach for W3C...
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References
>
> and is certainly used in the OWL 1.0 specs.  We could decide to switch
> to numeric footnotes like 'Cite' offers, but we should not do so  
> lightly.
>
> I think what we want can be done with a pair of templates, which I  
> just
> wrote, one for use in the text:
>
>   {{ref|RFC-3987}}
>
> and the other for use in the Reference section:
>
>  {{refdef|RFC-3987
>  |<cite>[http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt RFC 3987 -  
> Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)]</cite>. M. Duerst, M.  
> Suignard. IETF, January 2005, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt.}}
>
> Perhaps refdef could have various forms for various kind of citations;
> that's not so important now.
>
> For an example of these template in use, see
>   http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Example_References
>
> Does that do what we want?    Ideally, it could give errors if the
> strings used in {{ref| ... }} didn't line up with those used in  
> refdef,
> but ah well (some other tool can check for that).
>
> That said --- perhaps we still want numeric references for
> academic-style references in non-spec documents?
>
>     -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 04:32:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:17 GMT