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 19:50:33 +0000
To: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <w3c@marcosc.com>, <chaals@opera.com>, <chairs@w3.org>, <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8A8ABE4C-A564-4EB0-9492-F48A76BF76FE@nokia.com>
+1, we should credit authors and editors for their work.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Dec 13, 2011, at 2:08 AM, ext Martin J. Dürst wrote:

> 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 Wednesday, 14 December 2011 19:55:17 GMT

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