W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2013

Re: References and Modularity

From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 20:31:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGnGFML5pkD1aOud0V0w_F8dzY3M-QRt+VQJEsCDUrERN8NXaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> > Is there any part of www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ you disagree with?
>
> I think it makes matters too complicated. Referencing e.g. BCP47 for
> languages tags is fine. There's no need to reference a dated version.
> Standards for (web) software require active maintenance so using
> references that won't change over a decade is the wrong optimization.
>

There are two distinct use cases. If you want to say that information about
how such and such is done has a particular name (e.g. BCP47), lives in some
place, or is maintained by some organization, then the undated reference is
OK since you really are talking about an ongoing process. However, there is
also the situation that you find in scholarship: you (the author) are
making a claim, the truth of which depends on the content of some document,
and your reputation depends on the validity of your claim. In this
situation it is very important to do the dated reference, since the ways in
which the target document might change are beyond your control, and your
claim might become false if evaluated against an updated version. Maybe you
usually want to provide both references: X1 is the version of X we
consulted, and the current version of X can be found (or is called) such
and such.

Jonathan

>
> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 00:32:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:20 UTC