- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:53:28 +0900
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: public-iri@w3.org
Hello Julian, On 2012/03/12 16:20, Julian Reschke wrote: > References check...: Is that your private tool, or something available online? >> Normative References: >> ASCII: not checked >> ISO10646: not checked >> RFC2119: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014) ok >> RFC3491: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC5891 This is cited in a context where RFC5891 woudldn't be appropriate. >> RFC3629: [STANDARD] (-> STD0063) ok >> RFC3986: [STANDARD] (-> STD0066) ok >> RFC5890: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok >> RFC5891: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok >> RFC5892: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok >> RFC5234: [STANDARD] (-> STD0068) ok >> UNIV6: not checked >> UTR15: not checked >> >> Informative References: >> draft-ietf-iri-bidi-guidelines-02: [2012-03-09 ID-Exists] ok >> Candidate Recommendation: document unknown We seem to be using both "Recommendation/Note/..." and more explicit labels (e.g. REC-xmlschema-2-20041028) in the value attribute for <seriesInfo name="World Wide Web Consortium". Which one is right? >> Duerst97: not checked That's currently in limbo, I have to make sure it's accessible again. I have opened http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/ticket/120 for this. >> draft-ietf-iri-comparison-01: [2012-03-02 IESG] ok >> Gettys: not checked >> Recommendation: document unknown >> RFC2130: [INFORMATIONAL] ok >> RFC2141: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok >> RFC2192: [PROPOSED STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC5092 >> RFC2277: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0018) ok >> RFC2384: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok >> RFC2396: [DRAFT STANDARD] obsoleted by RFC3986 >> RFC2397: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok >> RFC2616: [DRAFT STANDARD] ok >> RFC2640: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok >> RFC3987: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok >> draft-ietf-iri-4395bis-irireg-03: Alternate version available: 04 Fixed in subversion with revision 108 (http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/trac/browser/draft-ietf-iri-3987bis?rev=108) >> RFC5122: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok >> RFC6055: [INFORMATIONAL] ok >> RFC6068: [PROPOSED STANDARD] ok >> UNIXML: not checked >> UTR36: not checked >> REC-xlink-20010627: [REC] ok >> REC-xml-20081116: document unknown >> REC-xmlschema-2-20041028: [REC] ok >> REC-xptr-framework-20030325: [REC] ok > > Note the warning for XML; the proper id is REC-xml-20081126. Fixed in subversion with revision 108 (see above). Actually, that string was correct before revision 102, but it was listed as the Forth Edition with a date in 2006. When I fixed that, thought I had to fix the id, too, and made a typo. Regards, Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 07:54:02 UTC