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: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:11:37 +0100
Cc: "chairs@w3.org Chairs" <chairs@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EB1CE9AB-68CC-407E-8689-0618F7BFD3A8@berjon.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
On Dec 14, 2011, at 21:10 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> Only problem, for me, is that the references point to the dates version of specs. Preferably, they should point to the latest published version.
> 
> So, instead of: 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-2dcontext-20110525/ 
> 
> What should be there is:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2dcontext/
> 
> The use case are:  
>  1. avoiding pointing to a stale version (and if your document goes stale, the references don't!). 
>  2. Matching on the short name as an id (in case I don't want to use your ID system, which is the <label> element). 

This brings me to a convention I've been advocating here and there but that hasn't been formalised. There are use cases both for point to the latest version, and for pointing to a specific version that you don't want to see change beneath your feet. Supporting both requires that identifiers for either be distinguishable (especially for automated tools that generate the bibref for you, of which we have several).

The convention is simple:

[FOO] always points to the latest version, i.e. for W3C that's /TR/foo/
[FOO-20120315] is the dated version, i.e. for W3C /TR/2012/WD-foo-20120315/

> Also, what would be great is to include the Editor's draft, if one is available. 

Perhaps we could also have a [FOO-ED] convention?

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:12:07 GMT

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