I don't think that the term 'authoritative' has much utility. The version I want is the one most likely to be trustworthy.
The early church had a series of battles deciding which text should be considered cannonical. And pretty unpleasant ones at that.
If you have the medieval view of knowledge resulting uniquely from divine authority such disputes might make sense.
I think rfcs are closer to the wiki end of the scale.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gray, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thu Dec 01 15:24:59 2005
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Robert Sayre; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Moore; Tim Bray; [email protected]
Subject: RE: I-D file formats and internationalization
Phillip,
Two things:
1) Robert was speculating as to the reason why
people use chapter and verse rather than pages
in their references, and
2) He said "informal communication."
There is something a bit informal about referring to an
informal communication as "authoritative."
There is something equally casual about inferring that
what people read is necessarily authoritative. Usage
is that typically it is what people refer to when they
have a question, that is considered authoritative.
Otherwise, Executive Summaries would be considered to
be "authoritative" and this would beg the questions -
"why bother including the rest?"
--
Eric
--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
--> On Behalf Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip
--> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 6:07 PM
--> To: Robert Sayre
--> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Keith Moore; Tim Bray; [email protected]
--> Subject: RE: I-D file formats and internationalization
-->
-->
-->
--> > -----Original Message-----
--> > From: Robert Sayre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
--> > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 5:38 PM
--> > To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
--> > Cc: Tim Bray; Keith Moore; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
--> > Subject: Re: I-D file formats and internationalization
--> >
--> > On 12/1/05, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--> > >
--> > > On a point of information, most of the references I see
--> in existing
--> > > RFCs are to sections in any case.
--> >
--> > I suspect this is because almost everyone refers to an HTML
--> > version in informal communication.
-->
--> Why do you consider the TXT version to be authoritative if
--> as you admit
--> the HTML version is the one that is read by reviewers and readers?
-->
--> Meaning is the result of usage.
-->
-->
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> [email protected]
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
-->
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
