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

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

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 16:08:31 +0900
Message-ID: <4EE6F9EF.6030406@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "chairs@w3.org" <chairs@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 2011/12/13 2:12, Marcos Caceres wrote:

> I agree, particularly with everything Julian said in responding to this thread. I think the right thing to do is to do both: include references separated by normative and informative, but I still don't see any use case for including the author, date, or organization that produced the document.

Well, re. organization, I want to know whether it's from the W3C, IETF, 
ISO, IEEE, or any of the many other organizations out there. Don't you?

Re. date, I want to know when this was done. It helps understand whether 
this may be established technology or brand new, whether I have the 
right version, and so on.

Re. authors/editors, I want to know who did all the hard work to write 
the document. I want to see the people behind the specs.

And these informations are just standard in references of all shapes and 
forms, and it would be very confusing to leave them out.

Regards,    Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 07:09:10 GMT

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