W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: What are the requirements/problems? Re: Working on New Styles for W3C Specifications

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 00:24:58 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "chairs@w3.org" <chairs@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3381A2D96D4647B483909BCB78DA69C9@marcosc.com>


On Thursday, 1 December 2011 at 18:33, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-12-01 18:19, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > ...
> > 4. Do we really still need a bibliography when we use hypertext and in the age of living standards? How do people actually use bibliographies in the age of HTML (i.e., do people care when something was published, who published it, etc. and why or why not?)? Can't we just do away with bibliographies and just cross link to specifications.
> > ...
> >  
>  
>  
>  
> Thoughts on this one:
>  
> - proper hyperlinking to external resources: good. Bonus points for  
> linking to a concrete section (as opposed to what HTML5 does, for example)
>  
> - ...which implies: make it easy to link *to* the element; use section  
> anchors that are as stable as they can be made
>  
> - bibliography is still needed, so that a reader can get a quick  
> overview over dependencies, and how mature they are. the IETF groups  
> into normative and non-normative, and I think that's really useful.
>  
I agree about normative and non-normative references, dependencies, and I also agree about stability but only in as far as that the words "(work in progress)" are included … or omitted when REC is reached. My experience is that recommendation track status is not an indication of stability (apart from PR and REC).  



   
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 00:26:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:18 GMT