W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2012

RE: Fw: CfC: Close ISSUE-177: ietf-id-wip by Amicable Resolution

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 07:08:40 -0800
To: "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D06A86D348C@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
Independently of what IETF asks for, I think there has been an interesting TAG discussion about the role that unversioned undated references might play in the review cycle, in regard to ACTION-350 

https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/actions/350


and a reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#ref-define-practice 

At least in the QA document of best practices,  there is distinction is between references that are (or are not) normative, but a set of best practices:

Each normative reference to another specification (from W3C or not) should adhere to as many of the following principles as apply:

* Make reference to a precise and unique version of the other specification.
* When referencing a generic technology and all its future versions, be sure that the technology is orthogonal to yours and that future versions will not create incompatibilities for conformance or implementation.
* When referencing a generic technology and all its future versions, make it clear that the conformance requirements to a fixed version of your specification will potentially change over time to reflect changes made in the referenced technology as it changes in future versions.
* When using a specific feature of another specification, use the precise designation, wording of the feature and a unique and precise way to identify this feature in the specification (using the URI to the definition of the feature, using the exact section denomination).
* Use only the meaning defined in the reference; do not interpret or assume intention of the technology, as it may lead to different interpretations depending on the readers.
* Indicate any clear constraints on the reference without making it contradictory to the conformance model of the external reference.
* Clearly identify any normative reference that, if changed, could affect the publication schedule of your specification. Make sure that it has no implication on your conformance requirements for this version.
* If the referenced technology has extensibility points, indicate for each point whether your technology also extends at that point, restricts the range of extensions allowed at that point, or is transparent to that point.

Whether this does or doesn't apply to Internet Drafts might depend on the circumstance. In particular, an Internet Draft reference is to a document which has been clearly marked as unstable, likely to change incompatibly, etc.

In some circumstances those disclaimers are more significant than others.

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:15 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Fw: CfC: Close ISSUE-177: ietf-id-wip by Amicable Resolution

On 2012-01-26 14:52, Larry Masinter wrote:
> this html-wg issue concerns whether an undated url reference to 
> another specification is labeled as "work in progress" so that 
> reviewers are alerted to the loose binding.
>
> is that just a matter of taste with no substance?
> ...

The IETF says "don't cite this without this disclaimer". The HTML spec does. I don't think that's a matter of editorial taste (otherwise I wouldn't have raised it).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 15:09:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:44 GMT