W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2012

Re: ACTION-687: Please help me remember what this one is about

From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:49:57 -0400
Message-ID: <4F985565.4080508@arcanedomain.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@W3.org>

First of all, can we get links to the exact dated copy of the Rec in 
question, so that we can all verify what the facts of the "case" are.

On 4/25/2012 3:11 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> I would suspect that this specific case may be defensible. The I-D in question is the best existing documentation for a process that is already implemented pretty much across the board anyway. Documentation of the de facto, however unstable, could justifiably have been considered better than nothing at all.

Perhaps, but I would certainly expect such a reference to be non-normative. 
Was it in this case? I would also expect that even if it were for some 
reason allowed, the reference would be accompanied by some explanation of 
its somewhat unusual status as being best-available rather than stable or 
community consensus. Further more >if< the reference is to an IETF document 
for which the link will go 404 after the document expires, then I don't 
think that would be particularly defensible in a REC (not sure that's the 
case here, but links from a rec should be to documents that will, with high 
probability, remain accessible far into the future, IMO.) Again, all of 
this will be easier to judge with a dated URI for the Proposed 
Recommendation in question.

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 19:50:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:44 UTC