- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 09:06:45 -0500
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>, Spec Prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 12:31 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote: [...] > Referring to EDs is IMHO in general a poor practice, Quite. > and HTML5 is pretty much the only case in which I think that it is > really justified (because the heartbeats are typically behind enough > that it's worth it). So maybe we don't need a general rule, > just a decision on how to refer to HTML5 as it progresses. I'm > fine with removing the date, don't feel very strongly about it. I suggest (a) citing the most recent /TR/ publication (i.e. WD of HTML 5) (b) noting an editor's draft as an expected future direction. > I'll note that this isn't so much a ReSpec question as a general > question about how to maintain references in W3C specifications. I think I saw, in the ReSpec source code, its own bibliography of W3C specs. Why is that? Does the bibliography generator not suffice for some reason? http://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/tr-biblio-ui -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 14:06:08 UTC