- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:03:43 +0000
- To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
- Cc: spec-prod@w3.org
On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote: > Marcos > > believe it or not, lots of people still print materials for reading offline. Or print to PDF for reading on an ipad etc. Man, I'm the king of printing specs. Ask anyone who worked with me at Opera: my office was covered in stacks of specs all marked with various highlighter and pen colors. I simply cannot read large documents on screen (specially because I like putting my feet up on the couch and enjoying a nice cup of joe while digging into a spec by my favorite editors). > > A bibliography is useful because you can see what is referenced, in one place, all at once, offline and without any clicking ;) Yes, there is no disagreement there. The questions I was asking were more about what is the use case for each component (author, date, org, title, URL) in a bibliography is for. I was arguing you don't need a whole bunch of those things, but others had very good points as to why you might need them (and how you could use them to help you find lost/broken references). I personally did not agree with all the use cases, but found it really insightful and informative nonetheless (and have modified they way I do my bibliographies as a result). > > 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). Yes, that is more clear to me now. I'm more from the "living document" side of things: I personally see it as harmful to cite anything but the latests and greatest (i.e., preferably I only cite the Editor's draft). However, that is just me! And not something I want to debate further :)
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 20:04:21 UTC