- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 18:41:52 +0000
- To: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Cc: liam@w3.org, "Martin J." <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, 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, 23 December 2011 at 18:14, Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > > > On 12/22/2011 8:09 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > 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. > > > > I want to be clear what you're advising. We've been talking about biblios, > so let's consider a case where Bibilo B is to reference the specific > version RV of evolving specification R. > > * If you are saying that each dated version of R, such as RV, should also > include a reference to R (the undated/unversioned link), I agree. I think > that's standard practice for W3C TR track documents, no? In most cases yes, but consider: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/ http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core1/ As an example, there is no guarantee that "xmldig-core1" will eventually (when it goes to Rec) replace "xmldig-core". I would like that guarantee. Here is another example: http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n/ http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n11/ http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n2/ Ideally, "xml-c14n" should be the document at "xml-c14n11" because it's the latest Rec. There should have been "xml-c14n1", where 1.0 would live. The only reason to that the chain would be broken is if a new version breaks backwards compat with a previous version. > * If you're saying that the biblio entry in B must include not only the URI > for version RV, but also for R, I strongly disagree. I don't know, I'm lost in all the Rs and Bs :) > Particularly in the > case of normative references, the biblio should reference the > dated/versioned URI or the latest/undated URI according to whether the > intention is to have reference to the specific or the evolving version. If > the reference is to RV, then the biblio should >not< in general reference R > as well: as noted above, then I think it should be the RV document itself > that has links for funding successor versions. > > I couldn't tell which of the conventions above you are advocating. What SVG does. SVG's short name always points to the latest Rec. > (I know IETF has different conventions, and speaking just for myself, I > find them unhelpful. There's a priesthood that knows what to do when an > IETF URI ending in some number like "-02" disappears from the Web, but > ordinary mortals don't. Yes, this has bitten me once or twice (things at the IETF mysteriously vanish, and then reappear at another URI)… I don't understand the logic there. > I'm sure IETF has good reasons with lots of > history, but it doesn't work well for me. Nonetheless, I think this should > be addressed by IETF, if it is to be addressed at all: I don't think the > biblios in W3C documents are the right place to give tutorials or hints on > how to deal with IETF document versioning.) I agree.
Received on Friday, 23 December 2011 18:42:35 UTC