Re: Second Edition or (Second Edition)

* Martin Duerst wrote:
>I just had a look at some second/third editions. There seems some
>variation in how this information is integrated into the title.
>In particular, I found:
>	Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Third Edition)
>but
>	XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition
>
>I think that the former (with parentheses) is much clearer, and
>would recommend to use that form in the future.

I agree, I think this should be a requirement in the Pubrules document,
the upcoming revision of section 7 would be a perfect opportunity to do
that (it needs revision as both document you cite do not comply with the
requirement that "If a technical report with changes that affect
conformance to previous Recommendation but no new features, then there
MUST be a change to the minor revision number (e.g., "Version 1.1")").

>P.S.: This brings up another point. In both of the above cases,
>       only the latest date is noted, e.g.
>		W3C Recommendation 28 October 2004
>       for the later. I think it would be much better to use
>       the same wording in the actual document as on the TR
>       page (in this case:
>		First published 2 May 2001, revised 28 October 2004). 

I disagree here, it is adding noise that would only be useful to few
readers which can already find this information quite easily. It would
certainly look ugly (either overlong heading lines or changes in the
font size in the same heading).
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 13:08:36 UTC