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: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:16:46 +0000
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: spec-prod@w3.org
Message-ID: <85A49C93143A4453A59C8A7E47668DBD@marcosc.com>


On Wednesday, 14 December 2011 at 22:06, Shane McCarron wrote:

> 
> 
> On 12/14/2011 4:02 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> > 
> > 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/
> > [FOO-20120315] should _never_ happen, unless you are doing something non-normative: "Because of screwups in [FOO-20120315], bla bla bla"
> 
> 
> 
> I actually disagree. If 20120315 is a REC anyway. There are LOTS of 
> specs that need to reference a specific version of another spec. Look 
> at XHTML Modularization, for example. It references XML 1.0 Fourth 
> Edition even though there are later editions available. There were 
> important technical reasons for this.


Are you saying that to implement XHTML Modularization I have to support whatever bugs are in XML Fourth Edition (forever), and I need to have a separate implementation of XML Fifth Edition (which does not interact with XHTML) for other XML documents? And that I can't ever update my XML Parser to XML.Next to be used with XHTML Modularization because XHTML forces me to implement Forth Edition? 

> Regardless, there needs to be a 
> way to do this. Normatively.
> 

If the above is true, then that is pretty bad.  
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 22:17:22 GMT

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