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

> 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".)

Please note that the DTD requires a <date> element whose attributes (day, month, and year) must be numeric values with a specific length. That is, the "year" must be a four digit year such as 2005 and cannot be a string such as "first edition".

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 Nobody has commented on that ISO 3166 (without parts) is outdated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 (withdrawn), and that the current parts 1 and 3 may be what should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

In fixing draft-registry I have repaired this (I used the ISO website to get the dates, titles, and numbers correct). A power outage has prevented me from finalizing this, but now (as you can see) the bits are flowing.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Kent Karlsson
> Sent: 2005?8?4? 3:07
> To: Randy Presuhn
> Cc: ltru@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: revised editor's copy online
> 
> > 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 iesg@ietf.org 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.
> 
> 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).
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru