- From: Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:25:04 -0000
- To: "'Ian B. Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: "'public-webarch-comments@w3.org'" <public-webarch-comments@w3.org>
> For the moment, we don't distinguish between normative/informative > references because there is no conformance to this document. Hmm - good point. Was just mindful that DanC had mothballed that URI web page (and also traded it in for a newer 'sexed-up' wiki model). And then looking at the document I kind of wondered what a new reader would make of it all. No distinction between REC, CR, WIP, etc. They would all pass themselves off as authoritative. Whereas some docs have received considerable scrutiny. Though as you say, there is no conformance requirements. Your suggestion looks interesting and I will noodle on it. Perhaps useful to relegate the Internet side of things to a general infrastructural level. Tony -----Original Message----- From: Ian B. Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org] Sent: 10 December 2003 18:32 To: Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) Cc: 'public-webarch-comments@w3.org' Subject: Re: Sect 6 - References On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 12:22, Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote: > Hi: > > Note that in Sect 6.1 the following reference under [IANASchemes] is to a > self-confessed retired page: > > "Dan Connolly's list of URI schemes is a useful resource for finding > out which references define various URI schemes." > > Would it be appropriate to distingush between normative and non-normative > (i.e. informative) references? If so, then the following would be an example > of a normative reference > > "IANA's online registry of URI Schemes is available at > http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes." > > while the Connolly resource (were it not retired) would be an informative > reference. Tony, For the moment, we don't distinguish between normative/informative references because there is no conformance to this document. I think that the current organization of the references may be confusing. We do intend to have a list of architectural references (6.2). Section 6.1 used to be the list of normative references, but then we eliminated conformance. "Internet Specifications" is not a useful title for 6.1. My sense (this morning) is that we should have two lists: a) References b) Architectural References Thoughts? _ Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2003 14:25:53 UTC