- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:10:02 -0600
- To: spec-prod@w3.org
Just on a related point... in the XHTML specs, the RDFa specs, and a variety of others, we always made / make a postscript and a PDF version available as part of the package. I would really like that to be included in this mix. On 12/14/2011 1:49 PM, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote: > Marcos > > believe it or not, lots of people still print materials for reading offline. Or print to PDF for reading on an ipad etc. > > A bibliography is useful because you can see what is referenced, in one place, all at once, offline and without any clicking ;) > > Similar to the idea of a "snapshot" as opposed to "living document" - static references offer clarity of intent (what was referenced when the document was created, avoiding various ambiguities due to subsequent changes in or loss of referenced material). > > regards, Frederick > > Frederick Hirsch > Nokia > > > > On Dec 12, 2011, at 12:12 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday, 1 December 2011 at 19:44, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 18:19:27 +0100, Marcos Caceres<w3c@marcosc.com (mailto:w3c@marcosc.com)> wrote: >>> >>>> 4. Do we really still need a bibliography when we use hypertext and in >>>> the age of living standards? >>>> >>> >>> >>> Yep. >>> >>>> How do people actually use bibliographies in the age of HTML (i.e., do >>>> people care when something was published, who published it, etc. andwhy >>>> or why not?)? >>>> >>> Its primary use is in printed versions, with a strong secondary use in >>> documents about the spec. In both those cases there is still quite a lot >>> of usage of the kinds of information you mentioned. Given that it is >>> common to refer to a document by a title and someone who put the words >>> there, the author or editor's name(s) are important in many cases, >>> although it would work to say that a document was produced by "W3C's >>> WigwamForAGossesBridle Working Group" - or even "W3C" for documents which >>> are published with consensus. >>> >> >>>> Can't we just do away with bibliographies and just cross link to >>>> specifications. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Not in a printed version, >> I still would like to see what this means. In practice, trying to "use" a printed spec is hard (it's not really searchable, and you can't really find what terms means because they are defined throughout a specification). >>> and since printing from the web is still a bit >>> arcane that probably means we need it in the standard published version. >>> Since we MUST have it for when people print, >>> >> It would be good to know how often that happens too (and why?). Anyone that has worked with me knows I print all specs like crazy and can't read long documents from screen. However, I only print specs to review them with a red pen… not to work from (specs I use every day are bookmarked for easy access). >>> we don't get to save much >>> work by cutting it out of online versions. >>> >> 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. >>> That said we could do smarter things than making people go via the >>> references section to follow a link - a style like >>> >>> ...in the case where _FudgeAPI stickiness_ [FUDGE] is used ... >>> >>> would probably be more helpful in an HTML document online. >>> >>> IMHO >>> >>> chaals >>> >>> -- >>> Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile Opera Software, Standards Group >>> je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk >>> http://my.opera.com/chaals Try Opera: http://www.opera.com >>> >> >> >> > -- Shane McCarron Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. +1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 20:10:38 UTC