--On Thursday, October 20, 2022 17:05 +0200 Ulrich Windl
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Carsten Bormann <[email protected]> schrieb am 20.10.2022 um
>>>> 15:29 in Nachricht
> <[email protected]>:
>> On 20. Oct 2022, at 08:42, Ulrich Windl
>> <[email protected]>
>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, 3339 contains references to ISO 8601:1988
>>>> and, for that matter, ISO 8601:2000 and at least the former
>>>> is rather close to normative. So, give the availability
>>>> (or last
>>>
>>> You won't like this type of comment, but isn't a reference
>>> to a standard,
>> that is not available anymore, equivalent to referring to no
>> standard?
>>> I did not inspect ISO standards, but for any evolving
>>> standard I'd expect
>> that the previous versions should be derivable from the
>> current one; otherwise it's just nonsense.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are expecting
>> here, but we should
>
>> not discuss this in generalities, but for the specific
>> standard that we want
>
>> to maintain.
>
> What I wanted to express is: It seems old versions of the
> standard just seemed to have vanished, and only newer versions
> are available. So when referring to an old version that
> practically does not exist any more (i.e. is not readable),
> any reference to such version is void.
>
> [...]
As I tried to indicate in my earlier comments about how things
work, "does not exist any more", "not readable", and "void" may
be a little strong. However, your point is at least mostly
valid. Let me try two other analogies, both far-fetched but
perhaps helpful in making your point and mine.
(1) Suppose someone wrote a technical article, suggested
standard or other specification, or RFP, today that was about
graphics over a network, that required compliance with a
technical standard for networking, and that normatively cited
RFC 493. We would hope it would be looked at with great
suspicion -- after all, more than a few things have happened
since 1973 that might affect models or protocols for graphics --
if the reader didn't know anything about that history, it might
slip by, leading to a very bad document and reference. Similar
comments, and maybe a better example, would apply to citing RFC
765 as the Internet standard for email transmission.
(2) As an example closer to home for you and Carsten, suppose
someone were writing today about current currencies and currency
regulations in Germany but cited as their normative authority a
document written in 1988 (when that famous version of ISO 8601
was published) or even one written in 1997. Those documents a
presumably still available somewhere, and some of their
provisions might still be applicable, but would one really want
to rely on a document that considered them the only appropriate
normative references, essentially assuming that nothing relevant
and of importance has happened since 1988? Somehow I doubt it.
And _that_ is the problem and would be the problem even if,
e.g., the author thought the D-Marks, or, for that matter, the
Mark der DDR, were more attractive or otherwise better than
Euros.
best,
john
_______________________________________________
TICTOC mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
