W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2010

Re: [CSS21] [css3-color] colorimetry references

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:40:33 +0200
Message-ID: <783748217.20101013174033@w3.org>
To: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On Sunday, October 10, 2010, 11:59:32 PM, Etan wrote:

>> I have updated the bibliographic database used by CSS WG so that the third edition (all parts, not just one specific part) of CIE 15:2004 is the one referenced.

EW> I thank you, Chris.

>> In the absence of a better URI I left it as is, but did update the ISBN to the correct one.

EW> The URL "http://cms.cie.co.at/Publications/index.php?i_ca_id=304"
EW> identifies a resource that, around 2010-10-07, has a representation
EW> that I find more pleasant than I find the representation of the
EW> resource that the URL "http://www.cie.co.at/publ/abst/15-2004.html"
EW> identifies. I presume that the variation over time between the sets of
EW> representations of the former resource will be greater than the
EW> variation over time between the sets of representations of the latter
EW> resource. In less precise words, the former URL is unstable. I suspect
EW> that a change to the server configuration will leave the former
EW> resource with an empty set of representations (HTTP status code “404”)
EW> sooner rather than later.

EW> Neither URL identifies the publication in question. It would be
EW> inappropriate to write that the publication in question is “available
EW> at” the former URL. It would be inappropriate to write that the
EW> publication in question is “available at” the latter URL.

Fair enough. I removed the URI. The next publication will pick up the edited database entry.

EW> I don’t know of a good option here. (The W3C as a whole and the
EW> community around it should investigate the problem of citations to
EW> works that are inaddressable, inaccessible, or unstable. Chris, please
EW> mention the problem to other people in the W3C Team.)

It has already come up in other contexts, I will raise it again. Several standards organizations do not seem to put any value on stable, referencable URIs.

>> %R CIE Publication 15:2004

EW> The correct identifier is simply “CIE 15:2004”. Use the correct identifier.

Fixed.

EW> Include editors’ names in the citation or explain why the working
EW> group has chosen to exclude them.

Which working group, CIE or W3C?

Policies vary. ISO for example, as policy does not list editors names.
 
The CIE page lists a number of people who "took part in the preparation of this technical report" and a different set of people who were "responsible for the formulation of the document". I'm not sure which if any of these should be listed as editors.

I don't have a cover page to look at for guidance (I don't have the report, I have tended to use the data in Wyszecki and Stiles if I needed that sort of thing.

>> Etan, please confirm that this addresses your comment.

EW> Chris, your message addresses my comment.

Thanks.


-- 
 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 15:40:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:32 GMT