W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [ReSpec] dated versions of works in progress

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 12:31:14 +0200
Cc: Spec Prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E0F7C113-E9FD-4A4B-95D7-B8A873304B3A@berjon.com>
To: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>
Hi Max,

On May 6, 2010, at 14:05 , Max Froumentin wrote:
> Should the ReSpec bibliography file contain multiple dated versions of continually evolving documents (e.g. editor's drafts)?
> 
> If my specification is based on HTML5 as it was on 2 January 2010, someone else's reference might be another date, and so on. We might end up with dozens of versions in the database.
> 
> I would therefore like to suggest that we remove dates from the works in progress in the bibliography. That should work unless a document refers to a specific feature of the work in progress, that was later removed (meaning that the reference is non-normative). In that case only adding a dated bibliography entry should be allowed.

I don't know what is best here. I'll note that this isn't so much a ReSpec question as a general question about how to maintain references in W3C specifications.

Referring to EDs is IMHO in general a poor practice, and HTML5 is pretty much the only case in which I think that it is really justified (because the heartbeats are typically behind enough that it's worth it). So maybe we don't need a general rule, just a decision on how to refer to HTML5 as it progresses. I'm fine with removing the date, don't feel very strongly about it.

Are there use cases for referring to an ED at a specific date?

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 10:32:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:17 GMT