Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: revised editor's copy online

From: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:40:48 +0200 (GMT+02:00)

Hi -

> From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Aug 3, 2005 8:22 PM
> To: Randy Presuhn <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: revised editor's copy online
...
> The DTD/tool is in this regard too limited. It does not fit the way
> ISO, IEC, and ISO/IEC standards should be referenced. This should
> be fixed in the xml2rfc DTD and tool. Meanwhile, it is not completely
> out of order to consider e.g. "ISO/IEC 10646:2003" as an "author" (the
> WG per se is never given as author), and "first edition" as a "date".
...

This is really outside the scope of this WG.  I suggest that you forward your
concerns regarding the general format of entries to the editors of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rfc-editor-rfc2223bis-08.txt
This document is currently in the "IESG Evaluation" state, so going 
to [email-masked] would make sense if its editors' rationale isn't satisfactory.

For DTD issues, there is another list.  Look for "xml2rfc" on the web page
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi; I wouldn't expect much support
there for formats not reasonably well aligned with 2223bis.

As a technical contributor, I'd be interested in learning why "first edition" would
ever be more useful than a specific date for a document.

Randy, ltru co-chair

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 12:06:40 +0200 (CEST)

> there for formats not reasonably well aligned with 2223bis.

Ok. Thanks for the referal. But none of those updates (nor any updates
of the readymade references) will be done before 8th of August (or
whatever the real final date will be for -registry).

> ever be more useful than a specific date for a document.

It's not. But the date (year) is already included after the colon in
"ISO/IEC 10646:2003". National standards organisations have similar
conventions. For instance, ANSI uses a hyphen and year number just after
the standard's number. Giving the year number later on is more than
redundant, it's repetition. I think it is better to follow the convention
given by the publisher in this case, rather than moving things around.
It is well established practice to have the publication year just after
the standard's number.

The edition number is redundant, but is usually mentioned anyway. This
is not just for ISO standards. Look at the XML standards for instance;
they include the edition number, even in the title (which I think is
not quite the right place for it). (And the current DTD required a "year",
which is written after the title, so I put the edition number as "year".)

B.t.w., within ISO, at least, undated (normative) references refers to
the latest edition, including future editions when issued; while dated
references refers to that specific version, while later editions may
(or may not) apply.

Nobody has commented on that ISO 3166 (without parts) is outdated
(withdrawn), and that the current parts 1 and 3 may be what should
be referenced.

     /kent k