W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > July 2002

Re: status of issue list

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 18 Jul 2002 17:11:39 -0500
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1027030299.27575.442.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 17:01, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: status of issue list
> Date: 18 Jul 2002 16:13:05 -0500
> 
> > On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 15:41, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Well, it's part of the proceedings of the WG, so it's
> > perhaps more than your average web page, but it's not a WD.
> > 
> > > peter
> 
> How then should it be referenced in the WDs?

Umm.. by title (linked), editor, date, and a "work in progress"
note, I suppose.

There are no hard constraints.

Let's see if there's any guidance in the manual of style...
  http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References

yes...

"# An entry in a references section takes this form:

    * Title, inside a (if available), inside cite
    * Comma-delimited list of authors' names
    * If there are no authors, use editors instead if available.
Following the last family name, say "eds." or "Editors."
    * Publisher, followed by the date of publication in the form DD
Month YYYY
    * A sentence containing a text-only URI.
    * When available, a sentence ending in the latest version URI
"

>  I've put it in like a WD,
> with latest version and all, but the current version does not appear to have
> a semi-permanent home (unlike the earlier versions).

I think it's OK to just cite the evolving document, noting
the issues list last-revised date as of when the WD was
last revised.

> 
> > -- 
> > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> > 
> 
> peter
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 18:11:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT