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: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:14:57 -0500
Message-ID: <4EF4C521.4090404@arcanedomain.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
CC: liam@w3.org, "Martin J." <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, 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>

On 12/22/2011 8:09 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> 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.

I want to be clear what you're advising. We've been talking about biblios, 
so let's consider a case where Bibilo B is to reference the specific 
version RV of evolving specification R.

* If you are saying that each dated version of R, such as RV, should also 
include a reference to R (the undated/unversioned link), I agree. I think 
that's standard practice for W3C TR track documents, no?

* If you're saying that the biblio entry in B must include not only the URI 
for version RV, but also for R, I strongly disagree. Particularly in the 
case of normative references, the biblio should reference the 
dated/versioned URI or the latest/undated URI according to whether the 
intention is to have reference to the specific or the evolving version. If 
the reference is to RV, then the biblio should >not< in general reference R 
as well: as noted above, then I think it should be the RV document itself 
that has links for funding successor versions.

I couldn't tell which of the conventions above you are advocating.

(I know IETF has different conventions, and speaking just for myself, I 
find them unhelpful. There's a priesthood that knows what to do when an 
IETF URI ending in some number like "-02" disappears from the Web, but 
ordinary mortals don't. I'm sure IETF has good reasons with lots of 
history, but it doesn't work well for me. Nonetheless, I think this should 
be addressed by IETF, if it is to be addressed at all: I don't think the 
biblios in W3C documents are the right place to give tutorials or hints on 
how to deal with IETF document versioning.)

Received on Friday, 23 December 2011 18:15:24 UTC

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