Re: Request to Revert revision 1.4525

Hi Maciej,

I think that warning is fine, except that it is visually emphasised, but not
in the mark-up. suggest the most robust way to empahsise this information is
to provide a heading for it.
Also the example points to a draft of the same spec, currently the HTML5
spec does not, I suggest that it be a stipulated  the link point to a draft
version of the spec , preferably in W3C space, not to a spec that is HTML5 +
other stuff.

regards
Stevef

On 28 October 2010 08:28, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 28, 2010, at 12:10 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >>
> >> Ian, the chairs have determined that the following change is likely to
> >> reduce rather than increase consensus, and therefore per our
> >> agreement[1] are requesting a speedy revert of the following change
> >> pending resolution of the "publishing problem":
> >>
> >>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-commits/2010Oct/0332.html
> >
> > Holy overreaction, batman. I'm just having some publication issues and
> > didn't want people to be referencing an obsolete editor's draft in the
> > meantime. It'll be fixed when it's fixed. I really don't think it's a
> good
> > idea to have people referencing an obsolete draft in the meantime,
> though,
> > especially since there's a perfectly adequate alternative available that
> > I can point people to, so I've left it as-is for now
>
> What are the publication issues that prevent updating the Editor's Draft?
> Perhaps the Chairs or Team Contacts can help if there are technical
> difficulties.
>
> >
> >> And furthermore, we are asking that if you have a list of issues that
> >> you feel need to be resolved, you enumerate them either on this list or
> >> as bug reports.
> >
> > Well since we're on the topic of obsolescence, I think we should have a
> > warning on the TR/ page that this draft is perennially obsolete as well.
> > It's causing lots of problems with people referencing old (and
> > known-wrong, since-fixed) text [1]. I'd added such a warning to the draft
> > before we last published but for some reason you removed it.
>
> We previously discussed this privately, and the Chairs asked for the
> warning to be proposed on the mailing list before publishing a draft
> including it, to make sure it wouldn't be a source of drama or controversy,
> and that everyone agrees on the specific text. It's true that there are
> often other changes to the status section which we don't feel merit this
> level of review; however, we think it's part of our job to exercise our
> judgment to limit drama, and in this case it seemed wise to have a bit of
> discussion first.
>
> Anyway, now that it has been brought up - what do you think of the warning
> box in the recently published Navigation Timing Working Draft:
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-navigation-timing-20101026/>?
>
> How would others in the WG feel about a similar warning box in the status
> section of HTML WG drafts?
>
> With chair hat off, I'll give my personal view - I think it would be
> beneficial, and I think the particular wording there is reasonable. In
> particular, I have seen myself some cases where there was miscommunication
> due to one person looking at a Working Draft and another at an Editor's
> Draft, and not realizing right away that there have been changes. I think it
> would be good to fix that, and it is reasonable and within W3C precedent.
>
> I would also personally support a quick-turn publication round to add
> warning boxes along these lines to our published Working Drafts.
>
> Would be glad to hear other views as well.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html