[rfc-i] date-less citations

Paul Kyzivat paul.kyzivat at comcast.net
Mon May 15 11:31:38 PDT 2017


On 5/15/17 11:37 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> While I can not speak for the otehrs involved in the conversation about
> references to open source, the general tone of the discussion has been
> that normative references still have to be to a stable referent.

Yes. Perhaps the rule can be different for informative references. But 
even then, if you are referring to a source that you claim has some 
position about some topic, then if the reference isn't stable you have 
no reason to believe that the reader will find any such thing.

It might make sense to say "The web site at http:foo.bar/baz is a place 
where code on this subject may be found." But given the life cycle of 
open source projects even that may be dicy. At least that is a different 
sort of reference than either normative or informative references.

	Thanks,
	Paul

> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 5/15/17 11:22 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> (Actually, references to open source projects and other moving targets
>> is one interesting issue that we are having. So I'm not sure that
>> sentence, which probably was a desirable rule a decade or two ago,
>> should stay true...)
>>
>> Sent from mobile
>>
>> On 15. May 2017, at 01:08, Paul Kyzivat <paul.kyzivat at comcast.net
>> <mailto:paul.kyzivat at comcast.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/14/17 5:40 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>>>>> is there an agreement about how to reference things that have no
>>>>> publiccation date (for whatever reason)?
>>>>
>>>> There are two main reasons:
>>>>
>>>> — the date is not given on the document (because the author didn’t
>>>> think this was an archival document, forgot to date, …).
>>>> - there was no publication date in that sense (e.g., for a web page
>>>> that is continually being updated)
>>>>
>>>> For the first, I like to have some indication of “no date” (and we
>>>> can discuss whether “n.d.” is Latin enough here :-).
>>>> For the second case, the date-less reference may make most sense:
>>>
>>> The second case is problematic. In that case the reference isn't
>>> stable. IMO it shouldn't be treated as a *reference* at all. (It
>>> *definitely* shouldn't be a normative reference.)
>>>
>>>    Thanks,
>>>    Paul
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rfc-interest mailing list
>>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org <mailto:rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>
>>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list