<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/8/2019 3:58 PM, Mike Hemp wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-c60487e1-89cc-4922-8853-d43dd10220b0-1546991920558@3c-app-mailcom-lxa08">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>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.
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>W3C manages without numbers.</p>
<p>But that requires short names like "CSS" or "HTML" or something.</p>
<p>Having to always cite documents by a full title like "<span
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">email address internationalization
EAI a technical_overview</span>" 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.</p>
<p>A./<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-c60487e1-89cc-4922-8853-d43dd10220b0-1546991920558@3c-app-mailcom-lxa08">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday,
January 09, 2019 at 3:01 AM<br>
<b>From:</b> "Asmus Freytag"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:asmusf@ix.netcom.com"><asmusf@ix.netcom.com></a><br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ua-discuss@icann.org">ua-discuss@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [UA-discuss] Proposal: Handling
Numbering of the UASG Documents</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color: rgb(255,255,255);">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">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.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/</a></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">or</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/latest"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/latest</a></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">would get the latest
version and</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/2018-05-12/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/2018-05-12/</a></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">would be a specific
version. Each version remaining unaltered once
posted.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">A./</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/8/2019 12:54 PM, Jim
DeLaHunt wrote:</div>
<blockquote>UA Colleagues:<br>
<br>
I think the problem Michael points out is a real
one, and worthy of attention.<br>
<br>
On 2019-01-08 07:03, Michael Casadevall wrote:
<blockquote>So currently, the UASG publishes various
documents such as UASG 0005 and<br>
0007 and occasionally updates these documents to
reflect best current<br>
practices. For example, the UA Quick Guide was on
Version 9 before it<br>
was removed for revision.<br>
<br>
One thing I'm concerned on is that it's not clear
that a document has<br>
been updated, nor what has changed from version to
version. Furthermore,<br>
when dealing with old discussions, a document may
have changed from a<br>
message or posted....</blockquote>
Michael proposes one alternative,
<blockquote>…to change the numbering and management
of UASG documentation<br>
to model it around the RFC/IETF where a document
is static once<br>
published (with errata linked), and is
obsoleted/superseded by future<br>
documents.…</blockquote>
<br>
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".<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I believe we should also define standard, persistent
URLs for each document, something like:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/2018-05-12/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/2018-05-12/</a><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best regard,<br>
—Jim DeLaHunt, Vancouver, Canada<br>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>