From: connolly@w3.org (Dan Connolly) Subject: Cite Sources! Dispell FUD! Date: 1995/09/22 Message-ID: #1/1 distribution: world organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology followup-to: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html It's been a long time since I visited USENET newsgroups about HTML and the web. I'm encouraged to see healthy debate of HTML specifications, standards, and extensions along with the general HTML techniques and how-to dialogue. But I'm concerned with the level of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in many of these postings. What's the authoritative source of info on HTML? Which browsers support what? Which browsers are broken in what way? I don't have anything specific to add to the debate. You can find my opinions elsewhere. But I have a general recommendation: An answer posted to USENET without references isn't worth the bandwidth used to transmit it. If you're answering an HTML syntax question, cite your source. There's really no excuse not to. The beauty of internet technology is that anybody can get at the authoritative specs in a matter of seconds. And the beauty of the web is that you can make and follow these references so easily. Give a URL. And since web documents can change, give the revision date. And since web documents can move, give the title and author, so folks can use search services to find moved documents. (Crediting the author is really a matter of politeness, too.) If you want to save somebody a little time, excerpt the relevant portion of the document. Your argument will be so much more convincing if the reader can check your answer from independent sources. You'll build credibility. Quality of documents on the web will increase! World hunger will be eliminated!!!! Er... ahem... Dan -- Daniel W. Connolly "We believe in the interconnectedness of all things" Research Scientist, MIT/W3C PGP: EDF8 A8E4 F3BB 0F3C FD1B 7BE0 716C FF21 http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/People/Connolly