On 2011-09-06 01:02, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011, Julian Reschke wrote:
I do see that it's a problem when people use outdated specs; but maybe
the problem is not the being "dated", but how they are published. As far
as I can tell, there's not nearly as much confusion on the IETF side of
things, where Internet Drafts actually come with an Expiration Date.
Not helpful, I was referring to Internet drafts.
Things are even worse on the IETF side, with RFCs that have been long
obsoleted by newer RFCs having no clear indication of such, RFCs having
Yes, that's a problem.
no canonical URL, RFCs claiming things that are completely bogus, etc.
They do have a canonical URL (just not a good one).
Plus, IDs expire, which makes things even worse, since it means you can't
have stability _by design_ unless you're willing to commit to the text
I think that's a feature.
being fixed. Plus, when someone actually tries to publish regular updates,
as I did with the WebSocket draft, people complain that it's being
updated! No, the IETF situation is far worse.
Because you were using the publication process in a way it's not
designed for.
Best regards, Julian
