This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
1) Add pubilshing dates for the documents listed in the Reference chapter. (There currently are no dates.) 2) Make use of the <time> element for stating these publishing dates. If pubrules prevents it, then at least use <time> in the WHATwg version. 3) With regard to one particular reference, namely the reference to "Inter Gravissimas", [1] then: - You, correctly, state that it was issued in February. [2] But the <time> element is supposed to express only *Gregorian* dates, [3] whereas the Gregorian reform took place after February - namely in October. [4] Thus its publishing date is Julian. (When we convert the Julian publishing date to Gregorian, then we land in March. ) So perhaps its date cannot be expressed with <time>? - From another angle, you appear to point to Clavius's publication (he who was the brain behind the reform). His publisher published Inter Gravissimas in 1612 as part of Volume 5 of his "Opera Mathematica". [5] The volume is online, and Inter Gravissimas starts at page 13. [6] So perhaps you should just use 1612 as the date? [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/references.html#refsGREGORIAN [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_Gravissimas#cite_ref-pbull_0-0 [3] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics.html#the-time-element [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar#Difference_between_Gregorian_and_Julian_calendar_dates [5] http://mathematics.library.nd.edu/clavius/about/about_page.html [6] http://mathematics.library.nd.edu/clavius/cgi-bin/page_turner.cgi?output_main=1&lh_id=13420&rh_id=13424
(In reply to comment #0) > 1) Add pubilshing dates for the documents listed in the Reference chapter. > (There currently are no dates.) Why? A lot of them change monthly or even more often, so it seems like a lot of work to keep them up-to-date, for little gain.
(In reply to comment #1) > (In reply to comment #0) > > 1) Add pubilshing dates for the documents listed in the Reference chapter. > > (There currently are no dates.) > > Why? A lot of them change monthly or even more often, so it seems like a lot of > work to keep them up-to-date, for little gain. HTML5 is a "snapshot" of the HTML standard. Therefore it should document which "snapshots" of other standards it depends on or deviates from. Meanwhile I suspect that the publication rules of W3 require proper references. And proper references, to my knowledge, always contain information about the timestamp of the source. If some reference are particular instable, then there more important could it be to identify a timestamp. Or it could be a reason to insert a note, in the working draft, stating that the final datestamp for that source refence, will be inserted when both HTML5 and that source has stabilized more. For those who believe in the idea of a "living standard", then I don't really trust their belief if they are not interested in keeping the refrences up to day. An accurate reference section is important when reviewing the HTML5 standard. We don't need to reinvent everything. Lets keep it simple and simply accept the common rules for how refernces should be. They are helpful and useful in ways which it would take too long to explain.
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: This doesn't seem to solve any problems and yet would be a massive amount of work. I'm not interested in doing it. If you would like to maintain a diff that applies these changes to the specification that is automatically applied during the publication process, please reopen this bug and attach your first attempt at such a diff. I would be happy to set up an automated system to apply such a diff.
mass-move component to LC1