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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:37:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4EE74701.3060509@gmx.de>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
CC: duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "chairs@w3.org" <chairs@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 2011-12-13 12:39, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> (a) Following the link might get you a 404. Yes, cool URIs do not
>> change, but unfortunately some orgs do not get that.
>
> Some go out of business, so sometimes it's not their fault… sometimes things just change (e.g., companies change names and their old domains are forgotten about).
>> When that happes,
>> additional information like the full title, the organization, the date
>> and the authors can help finding the document somewhere else.
>
> Question is still if you need all four. Certainly, all four provide a lot of redundancy and fallback, but that comes at the cost to the Editor: I'm personally tired of having to keep my references up to date (it's very time consuming), so I'm simply not doing it any more unless it can be proved that it is not possible to find a document with just the old URL and the title… I've actually kept the organization in my specs, but that's it. I also see others moving towards this model (e.g., HTML5, DOM4, which have kept author and org, but have dropped showing dates, status of document, and "available at" etc. which is seen in "classical" referencing).
> ...

With the proper document source format, you can automate up-to-date 
changes, at least for W3C and IETF specs.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 12:38:09 GMT

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