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
Received on Friday, 23 December 2011 01:09:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:19 UTC