- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:18:42 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: "" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "chairs@w3.org" <chairs@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 2011-12-13 11:51, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at 7:08 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > >> On 2011/12/13 2:12, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> >>> I agree, particularly with everything Julian said in responding to this thread. I think the right thing to do is to do both: include references separated by normative and informative, but I still don't see any use case for including the author, date, or organization that produced the document. >> >> Well, re. organization, I want to know whether it's from the W3C, IETF, >> ISO, IEEE, or any of the many other organizations out there. Don't you? > > Personally, I don't have a use case for that information (and I don't see what value it adds in real terms). What's the use case for knowing that information? What are you going to do with it? How will it influence your reading? Can't you get that information just by clicking or hovering over the hyperlink? Is it not evident in most cases? (a) Following the link might get you a 404. Yes, cool URIs do not change, but unfortunately some orgs do not get that. When that happes, additional information like the full title, the organization, the date and the authors can help finding the document somewhere else. (b) And yes, the origin of a spec tells me a lot about the kind of stability I can expect. Not going to name specific organizations here, though. > ... Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 11:26:04 UTC