- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 01:09:17 +0000
- To: liam@w3.org
- Cc: ""Martin J." <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>, Jim Melton <jim.melton@oracle.com>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, chairs@w3.org, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On Friday, 16 December 2011 at 19:22, Liam R E Quin wrote: > But we are, I think, getting a little off-topic, except to note that > sometimes you want to say, "use the latest/current X", sometimes, "use > version 3 but 3.2 or later of X", sometimes "use version 3.2 exactly", > and the references of course must reflect that. > I agree. However, some groups unknowingly restrict this kind of referencing. For example, the XML Sec WG has put a version number into the short name of the XML Dig Sig specs, hence, you can't ever point to the latest REC (and you are always bound to some version… I think XML Canonicalization does the same :( ). I think the W3C should mandate that every versioned specification alway have a /latest/ (or similar, like Unicode does) for people who just want the latest Rec of a spec. Or do what SVG, Widgets, etc. do, where the short name always points to the latest Rec. That way, all the use cases Liam gave above can be covered. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 23 December 2011 01:09:52 UTC