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: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 19:49:18 +0000
To: <w3c@marcosc.com>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <chaals@opera.com>, <chairs@w3.org>, <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CB1D70C4-B1C1-4517-94FF-E0CD98870C2D@nokia.com>
Marcos

believe it or not, lots of people still print materials for reading offline. Or print to PDF for reading on an ipad etc.

A bibliography is useful because you can see what is referenced, in one place, all at once, offline and without any clicking ;) 

Similar to the idea of a "snapshot" as opposed to "living document" -  static references offer clarity of intent (what was referenced when the document was created, avoiding various ambiguities due to subsequent changes in or loss of referenced material). 

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:12 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 1 December 2011 at 19:44, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:19:27 +0100, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com (mailto:w3c@marcosc.com)> wrote:
>> 
>>> 4. Do we really still need a bibliography when we use hypertext and in  
>>> the age of living standards?
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Yep.
>> 
>>> How do people actually use bibliographies in the age of HTML (i.e., do
>>> people care when something was published, who published it, etc. andwhy  
>>> or why not?)?
>>> 
>> 
>> Its primary use is in printed versions, with a strong secondary use in  
>> documents about the spec. In both those cases there is still quite a lot  
>> of usage of the kinds of information you mentioned. Given that it is  
>> common to refer to a document by a title and someone who put the words  
>> there, the author or editor's name(s) are important in many cases,  
>> although it would work to say that a document was produced by "W3C's  
>> WigwamForAGossesBridle Working Group" - or even "W3C" for documents which  
>> are published with consensus.
>> 
> 
> 
>>> Can't we just do away with bibliographies and just cross link to
>>> specifications.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Not in a printed version,  
> I still would like to see what this means. In practice, trying to "use" a printed spec is hard (it's not really searchable, and you can't really find what terms means because they are defined throughout a specification).     
>> and since printing from the web is still a bit  
>> arcane that probably means we need it in the standard published version.  
>> Since we MUST have it for when people print,
>> 
> 
> It would be good to know how often that happens too (and why?). Anyone that has worked with me knows I print all specs like crazy and can't read long documents from screen. However, I only print specs to review them with a red penů not to work from (specs I use every day are bookmarked for easy access).  
>> we don't get to save much  
>> work by cutting it out of online versions.
>> 
> 
> 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.    
>> That said we could do smarter things than making people go via the  
>> references section to follow a link - a style like
>> 
>> ...in the case where _FudgeAPI stickiness_ [FUDGE] is used ...
>> 
>> would probably be more helpful in an HTML document online.
>> 
>> IMHO
>> 
>> chaals
>> 
>> --  
>> Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group
>> je parle franšais -- hablo espa˝ol -- jeg kan litt norsk
>> http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 19:52:54 GMT

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