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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:05:26 +0100
Message-ID: <4F21C016.5000400@gmx.de>
To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
CC: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 2012-01-26 21:41, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
> Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 2012-01-26 20:44 +0100:
>
>> On 2012-01-26 20:38, Michael[tm] Smith wrote:
>>> Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 2012-01-26 15:14 +0100:
>>>
>>>> The IETF says "don't cite this without this disclaimer".
>>>
>>> > From where exactly are you quoting that phrase?
>>>
>>>    --Mike
>>
>>  From the boilerplate:
>>
>>     Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
>>     and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
>>     time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
>>     material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
>>
>> (from<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoehrmann-javascript-scheme-03>
>> which HTML5 cites)
>
> OK, but I still don't see anywhere there the phrase "don't cite this
> without this disclaimer" you put into quotation marks.

I put it into quotes to indicate that this is what they say. Sorry for 
the confusion. You know me well enough to know that if this was an 
actual citation I would have added a URI :-)

> Anyway, as far as disclaimers, you may have noticed that the "Status of
> this document" section of the HTML spec includes text which explicitly
> states (verbatim), "Implementors should be aware that this specification is
> not stable.  Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are
> likely to find the specification changing out from under them in
> incompatible ways.
>
> That disclaimer implicitly applies to any documents that the spec
> normatively references which also might not be stable.

That's an interesting point, but I still think it would be good that, 
when looking at references, you can actually tell which ones are stable.

> Maybe you have suggestions about how to make it more clear in the SOTD that
> the spec itself (including whatever other documents it might normatively
> reference) is overall a "work in progress".

I think it's pretty clear that an ED or WD is not stable, but it's 
totally not clear to me that this is supposed to automatically extend to 
whatever it cites.

Best regards, Julian

PS: I'd like to remind everybody that we wouldn't have this discussion 
if the author had done a three-line edit a few months ago.
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 21:06:00 GMT

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