W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Auto-generated Bibliographies

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:14:10 -0400
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org
Message-Id: <200306161014.10630.reagle@w3.org>

On Monday 16 June 2003 08:04, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> When I refer to a stable Rec, I use the dated version. When
> I refer to a document that's not yet a Rec, I refer to the
> dated version of the latest draft AND include a "latest version"
> link as well.

I believe the practice is to say what you mean, which IMHO means that for 
normative references one always provides a pointer to a dated version. (One 
can't normatively include the unspecified future, though in xmldsig we did 
get very closing to that with some of the Unicode specs and addendums! 
<smile/>) If your intent is to track another version then saying as much 
and providing both makes sense. 

Regardless, for a auto-biblio generation, I certainly want the dated 
versions.
Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 10:14:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:12 GMT