On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> > wrote: > > Is there any part of www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ you disagree with? > > I think it makes matters too complicated. Referencing e.g. BCP47 for > languages tags is fine. There's no need to reference a dated version. > Standards for (web) software require active maintenance so using > references that won't change over a decade is the wrong optimization. > There are two distinct use cases. If you want to say that information about how such and such is done has a particular name (e.g. BCP47), lives in some place, or is maintained by some organization, then the undated reference is OK since you really are talking about an ongoing process. However, there is also the situation that you find in scholarship: you (the author) are making a claim, the truth of which depends on the content of some document, and your reputation depends on the validity of your claim. In this situation it is very important to do the dated reference, since the ways in which the target document might change are beyond your control, and your claim might become false if evaluated against an updated version. Maybe you usually want to provide both references: X1 is the version of X we consulted, and the current version of X can be found (or is called) such and such. Jonathan > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 00:32:05 UTC