- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:03:02 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, Jarred Nicholls <jarred@extjs.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 2011-09-06 01:02, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Julian Reschke wrote: >> >> I do see that it's a problem when people use outdated specs; but maybe >> the problem is not the being "dated", but how they are published. As far >> as I can tell, there's not nearly as much confusion on the IETF side of >> things, where Internet Drafts actually come with an Expiration Date. Not helpful, I was referring to Internet drafts. > Things are even worse on the IETF side, with RFCs that have been long > obsoleted by newer RFCs having no clear indication of such, RFCs having Yes, that's a problem. > no canonical URL, RFCs claiming things that are completely bogus, etc. They do have a canonical URL (just not a good one). > Plus, IDs expire, which makes things even worse, since it means you can't > have stability _by design_ unless you're willing to commit to the text I think that's a feature. > being fixed. Plus, when someone actually tries to publish regular updates, > as I did with the WebSocket draft, people complain that it's being > updated! No, the IETF situation is far worse. Because you were using the publication process in a way it's not designed for. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 07:03:42 UTC