[rfc-i] date-less citations

Joel M. Halpern jmh at joelhalpern.com
Mon May 15 08:37:53 PDT 2017

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.


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

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list