[UA-discuss] Proposal: Handling Numbering of the UASG Documents

[Asmus Freytag (c)]

On 1/8/2019 3:58 PM, Mike Hemp wrote:
> For the god sake do not make it complicated for people. RFC/IETF is 
> only for highly technical community not for website and general 
> application developers. Keep complications behind and keep the things 
> simple for general audience. UASG is for everyone and must be 
> understood very easily. Asmus idea is great. Get rid of numbers 
> please. People who make money from technical stuff make issues 
> complicated and would come up with such ideas.

W3C manages without numbers.

But that requires short names like "CSS" or "HTML" or something.

Having to always cite documents by a full title like "email address 
internationalization EAI a technical_overview" gets pretty old.  
However, changing the title around a bit to something like EAI Overview: 
Email Address Internationalization (EAI), would allow "EAI Oveview" or 
"UASG EAI Overview" as shorthand, which arguably would be more 
self-explanatory than UASG 02.

A./

> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 09, 2019 at 3:01 AM
> *From:* "Asmus Freytag" <asmusf at ix.netcom.com>
> *To:* ua-discuss at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [UA-discuss] Proposal: Handling Numbering of the UASG 
> Documents
> For comparison, the Unicode Standard has the model where a link 
> generally would get you the latest version of a document, but each 
> document contains a header with a link to the previous revision of the 
> document.
> That way, if you want to point people to the latest version of a 
> document you can use an "evergreen" link, but if you need to be sure 
> that the link goes to a specific version, there's that option as well.
> http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/
> or
> http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/latest
> would get the latest version and
> http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/2018-05-12/
> would be a specific version. Each version remaining unaltered once posted.
> A./
> On 1/8/2019 12:54 PM, Jim DeLaHunt wrote:
>
>     UA Colleagues:
>
>     I think the problem Michael points out is a real one, and worthy
>     of attention.
>
>     On 2019-01-08 07:03, Michael Casadevall wrote:
>
>         So currently, the UASG publishes various documents such as
>         UASG 0005 and
>         0007 and occasionally updates these documents to reflect best
>         current
>         practices. For example, the UA Quick Guide was on Version 9
>         before it
>         was removed for revision.
>
>         One thing I'm concerned on is that it's not clear that a
>         document has
>         been updated, nor what has changed from version to version.
>         Furthermore,
>         when dealing with old discussions, a document may have changed
>         from a
>         message or posted....
>
>     Michael proposes one alternative,
>
>         …to change the numbering and management of UASG documentation
>         to model it around the RFC/IETF where a document is static once
>         published (with errata linked), and is obsoleted/superseded by
>         future
>         documents.…
>
>
>     Another alternative is to keep the document number unchanged, but
>     to have a clearly-defined revision date for each version of a
>     document, and to always cite a revision date along with the
>     document number. So, we would say "UASG012 Email Address
>     Internationalization (EAI): A Technical Overview (v 2018-05-12)"
>     instead of "UASG012" or "Email Address Internationalization (EAI):
>     A Technical Overview".
>
>     Whichever we do, I believe we should set editorial standards that
>     each document has a) document title, b) UASG number, and c)
>     revision date clearly on the front cover and in the file name of
>     each document issued. Looking through some existing documents, we
>     seem to be inconsistent about this. It makes documents harder to
>     find and harder to cite.
>
>     I believe we should also define standard, persistent URLs for each
>     document, something like:
>
>     http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/2018-05-12/
>
>     and ensure that visiting such a URL with a web browser returns
>     either the document file itself, or a page describing the document
>     and allowing one to download it.  I find it hard to put links to
>     UASG documents into presentations, because it's difficult to
>     figure out which URL to use, and how much to trust it to stay
>     usable over time.
>
>     Best regard,
>          —Jim DeLaHunt, Vancouver, Canada
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20190108/9cd4cb32/attachment.html>