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 23:14:33 +0100
Cc: "chairs@w3.org Chairs" <chairs@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F81E7018-A592-4464-98B0-61F67251F6A6@berjon.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
On Dec 14, 2011, at 23:02 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> 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. 
> Whoa! hang on. No Working Draft should be cited that way (i.e., as stable!). That's why HTML5 has the *big red warning* and document's SoTD always says that documents may be obsoleted at any time (unless they are Recs) and it's inappropriate to cite them as anything but a work in progress.  

Who's talking about WDs? http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/ now refers to SVG 1.1 edition 2, but used to refer to 1.1 edition 1, and before that to 1.0. Things do change.

Besides, it can make a lot of sense for work in progress to reference specific versions of other work in progress. In general I'm more in favour of letting editors be smart and not coming at them with my high horses  but I guess tastes differ there!

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 22:17:29 GMT

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