[Bug 1345] Please add RFC 3023 in the reference section

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1345


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|CLOSED                      |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |




------- Comment #3 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2006-04-27 00:18 -------
Pardon me for reopening this bug report -- somehow it seems thriftier
than opening a new one and using up another integer.  We wouldn't want
to run out.

In the Candidate Recommendation version of the XQueryX spec, the fix
for this bug appears to be not quite complete.  At least, I think the
reference would be clearer if the reference to RFC 3023 among the
references in appendix A (http://www.w3.org/TR/xqueryx/#biblio)
actually included the string "RFC 3023".  Specifically, I propose that
the bibliographic label be changed from "XML Media Types" to "RFC
3023" to match the usage in the reference RFC 2119 immediately
preceding.  Personally, I also think it would be useful to include the
RFC number in the body of the bibliographic entry (e.g. after the
title?), but that's probably best left to editorial discretion.  If
you don't use 'RFC 3023' as the short-form bibliographic label, then
you really must find someplace in the body of the reference to give
the number explicitly; otherwise it's too easy to overlook.  (I was
halfway toward clicking 'Submit' on a bug report saying this bug
hadn't actually been fixed before I noticed the reference.)

Also, note that none of the references to RFC 3023 in appendix C.2 are
successfully hyperlinked to the reference (perhaps because they use
the short form 'XMLMIME' rather than 'XML Media Types').

And finally, since it has been on my mind: RFC 3023 was published in
January 2001, and while I do not find an expiration date in the text,
it is subject to obsolescence and replacement by a newer RFC, and
indeed a new version of the RFC is in preparation.  I understand from
Chris Lilley that the materials are now ready for a slightly wider
public review:

  http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-02.html
  http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-02.xml
  http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/draft-murata-kohn-lilley-xml-02.txt

  See also the directory http://www.w3.org/2006/02/son-of-3023/ for
  diffs of the xml (wrt -01.xml) and the html (wrt -01.html).

Under the circumstances, I think that in the References section the
reference should be given a note to say that the normative reference
is to RFC 3023 or its successor(s), e.g.

  The version cited was current at the time this specification
  was published.  If it is succeeded by other documents, the later
  versions should be used.

(I use the word 'should' here advisedly; this wording should be
considered carefully, whatever the WGs decide.)

In the text, perhaps the references in C.2 should be to RFC 3023 "or
its successor(s)" -- I think at least the one in C.2.10 should be.

Received on Thursday, 27 April 2006 00:18:32 UTC