[xml2rfc] Reference data from W3C

[fred at cisco.com (Fred Baker)]

On Jun 5, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Martin Duerst wrote:

> My current guess is that the order in the xml2rdf reference data  
> was taken from an earlier version of the TR database, where the  
> order was by chance different. But I'm looking forward to know what  
> the actual reason for this confusion is.

I would guess that the reason is that in the IETF, author order has  
generally been considered irrelevant. Several people worked on it,  
end of discussion.

I would suggest that you send the directory maintainer a corrected  
citation file.
>From mrose at dbc.mtview.ca.us  Tue Jun  6 11:52:51 2006
From: mrose at dbc.mtview.ca.us (Marshall Rose)
Date: Tue Jun  6 10:52:58 2006
Subject: [xml2rfc] Reference data from W3C
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20060606092557.04f650d0@localhost>
References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060606092557.04f650d0@localhost>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>

> My guess was that this wrong order was taken from the W3C TR page at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/. However, that currently shows Yergeau, Maler,
> Bray, Sperberg-McQueen, Paoli (not correct either). That page in turn
> is generated from RDF (at http://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/ 
> tr.rdf).

the mixer uses this page:

	http://www.w3.org/2002/01/tr-automation/tr.rdf

> The reason the order of the authors isn't maintained is that RDF, by
> default, doesn't provide order among tuples (even if they are ordered
> when in RDF/XML form), and that the designers of the relevant schema
> ignored this fact and the fact that author order is significant.

if there is another machine-readable source that provides authors in  
the order that you want, please provide a URL.


> Here is what I'd like to see (adapted from
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt):
>
>    [XML1]         Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler,  
> E.,
>                   and F. Yergeau, "Extensible Markup Language (XML)  
> 1.0
>                   (Third Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium
>                   Recommendation, February 2004,
>                   <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml>.
>
> There are three important points here:
> - The order of the authors.

can't be fixed unless the source file is ordered.


> - The fact that it says "World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation"
>   rather than "W3C REC REC".

actually, it says W3C REC REC-xml-20040204

what do you want the following codes spelled out as:

	CR
	NOTE
	PR
	REC
	WD
	FirstEdition
	LastCall

> - The fact that it uses an actual URI (which could be
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-20040204 if it's important
>   to designate the precise version).

ok.

/mtr