> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom.Petch [mailto:sisyphus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:38 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: References to XML 'documents' > > With the increased use of XML, there are increasingly > normative references to > XML 'documents' which include such as > "May 2001, <http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/>. " > as in eg RFC3470, RFC3688, RFC3735. > > Trouble is, that form of URI picks the latest Edition, which > is currently > October 2004. > > To stay with the May 2001 Edition, the URI should be > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/xmlschema-1-20010502/>. > which then does not include the errata or minor improvements. > > What is best practice when referring to these XML 'documents'? In some cases, such as with 3470 and 3688, referring to the most recent version of an XML specification is probably the better thing to do because there is no real dependency on a specific version and, in general, we want people to refer to the current version. When there is a specific dependency it makes more sense to cite a specific version. Yes, that means that the errata etc. aren't automatically included, but that's pretty much the case when citing an RFC as well. 3735 should probably have cited the May 2001 edition specifically. I understand that the date attached to the most current version changes over time, while references and reference dates in our specifications don't. That's a risk when using an http URL as a reference. It might make sense to address the possibility of that discrepancy somewhere in the text of any specification that includes a reference to the current version of a W3C specification. -Scott- _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf