W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > May 2010

Re: pointers to the RIF schemas, current drafts

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 09:57:42 -0400
To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
cc: "public-rif-wg@w3.org" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <19760.1273586262@waldron>
> > Should I just remove the pre-LC versions, or put them in
> > an "old-versions" subdirectory?
> 
> Remove the pre-LC versions, 'lifting' the LC content to the .../bld/
> etc. levels, since I increasingly relied on the wiki's history
> and "Difference between revisions" features for version tracking.

Will do.     Were the versions on ruleml.org up-to-date?

> Could you preserve the (provenance information of the) wiki anyway,
> pointing to it with "Wiki version" fields?
> 
> For example, extend
> 
> This version:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PR-rif-bld-20100511/
> Latest version:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/
> Previous version:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-rif-bld-20091001/ (color-coded diff)
> 
> as follows:
> 
> This version:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PR-rif-bld-20100511/
> Latest version:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/
> Previous version:
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-rif-bld-20091001/ (color-coded diff)
> Wiki version:
>     http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/BLD

Hmmm.  That's a nice idea to put it up there.  Actually, it might be
nice to link to the version of the page that the TR was generated from,
so its easier to see changes.  I have that available.  I don't think I
can do this for this round, but I'll try to do it in the future.

Maybe instead of showing the URL, which looks like:
      http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/index.php?title=BLD&oldid=12707

it would be better like:

 This version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PR-rif-bld-20100511/ (on wiki)
 Latest version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-bld/
 Previous version:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-rif-bld-20091001/ (color-coded diff)

where "on wiki" would be the link.  We may get a lot of pushback for
doing that on mature documents (like PRs and RECs) but I still think
it's a good idea.

      -- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:57:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 May 2010 13:57:46 GMT