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

Re: [ReSpec] dated versions of works in progress

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 09:06:45 -0500
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>, Spec Prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1274105205.3925.10228.camel@pav>
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 12:31 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote:
[...]
> Referring to EDs is IMHO in general a poor practice,

Quite.

>  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.

I suggest
 (a) citing the most recent /TR/ publication (i.e. WD of HTML 5)
 (b) noting an editor's draft as an expected future direction.

> I'll note that this isn't so much a ReSpec question as a general
> question about how to maintain references in W3C specifications.

I think I saw, in the ReSpec source code, its own bibliography
of W3C specs. Why is that?

Does the bibliography generator not suffice for some reason?
http://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/tr-biblio-ui

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 14:06:08 GMT

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