Re: warnings on outdated specs/docs

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:53 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> OK, this is beginning to converge.
>
> 1) If the ‘latest version’ link is other than the current document,
> display the floater, inviting the reader to see the latest version?
>   — what if the latest version has significantly different maturity?  i.e.
> you are looking at PR of 1.0, there is a PR of 2.0 but the latest is a WD
> of 2.1.  Which does the user want?
>
> 2) If there isn’t a ‘latest version’ link, allow anyone to ask that such
> be added, in the case the automatic system missed it.  E.g. add to WCAG 1.0
> a latest version to 2.0?
>
> I realize #2 is manual, but what else do we have?
>

and 3) If a spec supersedes another and the shortname changed, redirect the
old shortname to the new shortname.  Also a manual step that is part of
pubs process I would guess.


>
>
> > On Mar 26, 2015, at 5:48 , Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> >
> > Absolutely. Where we have abandoned short names, we should certainly
> > turn those into redirects.
> >
> > We're currently proposing this as the (soon to be FPWD of) HTML-AAM
> > supercedes the older, now to be abandoned document and shortname:
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Mar/0065.html
> >
> > So, I suppose we should launch a crawler to help find these? That seems
> > eminently achievable.
> >
> > Janina
> >
> > Shane McCarron writes:
> >> Okay - but in this case could we just redirect that short name to 2.0?
> I
> >> mean, seriously.  That's what we did with RDFa when the short name
> >> changed.  My understanding is that this is what is supposed to happen
> as a
> >> matter of course when a short name changes.
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/
> >> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014/
> >> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/
> >> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-rdfa-core-20150317/
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Steve Faulkner <
> faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 26 March 2015 at 04:00, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Can't it just say "This spec is obsolete.  Click the 'latest version'
> >>>> link to see the latest version?  This could be generically applied to
> every
> >>>> old spec.  Or at least almost every.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately for some specs, WCAG 1.0 for example
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There is no link to the latest version (i.e. wcag 2.0)
> >>>
> >>>> Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT
> >>>
> >>> unlike HTML 4.01
> >>>
> >>> Latest version of HTML:http://www.w3.org/TR/html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> SteveF
> >>> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Shane McCarron
> >> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Janina Sajka, Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
> >                       sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> >               Email:  janina@rednote.net
> >
> > Linux Foundation Fellow
> > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:     http://a11y.org
> >
> > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> > Chair,        Protocols & Formats     http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
> >       Indie UI                        http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.