W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2011

RE: Discrepancies in published drafts

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:49:29 +0000
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E3EACD022300B94D88613639CF4E25F8279E0F12@TK5EX14MBXC136.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>"I note that starting with the "Working Draft 25 May 2011"
>(http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/), taking the link to "single page HTML"
>format goes to "Editor's Draft 15 July 2011", and the Overview (single page HTML) version of that seems to lack all of section 3 and most of section 4, etc.

The URI http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ is the URI of the "latest published version".  If you want to get only the Last Call content then start with http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525/  

When I start with http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525/ and ask for the single page HTML version it does NOT take me to the Editor's Draft.

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Janina Sajka
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 9:03 PM
To: public-html@w3.org
Subject: Discrepancies in published drafts

I received a question today from a colleague who's reviewing the Last Call. It seemed useful to bring that question here. He writes:

"I note that starting with the "Working Draft 25 May 2011"
(http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/), taking the link to "single page HTML"
format goes to "Editor's Draft 15 July 2011", and the Overview (single page HTML) version of that seems to lack all of section 3 and most of section 4, etc.

"Is it safe to use the single page HTML edition for most tasks, resorting to the multiple page version for content missing from the former, and is it (as I assume) best to be working exclusively from the July 15 Editor's Draft?"

I presume any omission is unintentional and will be addressed. However, was it intended to publish newer drafts while the Last Call is still open? Clearly, we've triggered caution in at least one outside reviewer.
What's the answer? The public call was issued against the May document.
Does it matter? It just doesn't seem tidy to me to have a more recently dated edition linked from the older edition--especially during a Last Call. Is that untidiness the worst of it? Or is there room for confusion in the bug processing end here as well?

Janina



-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Thursday, 21 July 2011 14:50:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:26 UTC