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: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 01:09:17 +0000
To: liam@w3.org
Cc: ""Martin J." <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Jim Melton <jim.melton@oracle.com>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, chairs@w3.org, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0C1E1C77D8B04F85BB772B2CC5CB13BF@marcosc.com>



On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 19:22, Liam R E Quin wrote:

> But we are, I think, getting a little off-topic, except to note that
> sometimes you want to say, "use the latest/current X", sometimes, "use
> version 3 but 3.2 or later of X", sometimes "use version 3.2 exactly",
> and the references of course must reflect that.
>  

I agree. However, some groups unknowingly restrict this kind of referencing. For example, the XML Sec WG has put a version number into the short name of the XML Dig Sig specs, hence, you can't ever point to the latest REC (and you are always bound to some version… I think XML Canonicalization does the same :( ).  

I think the W3C should mandate that every versioned specification alway have a /latest/ (or similar, like Unicode does) for people who just want the latest Rec of a spec. Or do what SVG, Widgets, etc. do, where the short name always points to the latest Rec.   

That way, all the use cases Liam gave above can be covered.  

--  
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 23 December 2011 01:09:52 GMT

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