- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:28:02 +0100
- To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- CC: public-iri@w3.org
On 2012-03-13 08:53, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > Hello Julian, > > On 2012/03/12 16:20, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> References check...: > > Is that your private tool, or something available online? <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629xslt.html#checking-references> >>> 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? I recommend the format I use in <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/w3c-references.html> >>> 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. Yes, that's how things happen :-)
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 16:10:49 UTC