W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: RfC: pre-LC comments for Web IDL; deadline January 17

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:47:56 +1100
Message-ID: <4F1F5F4C.4030402@mcc.id.au>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Marcos Caceres:
> Having said that, I would like to request that the text "Latest
> Stable Version:" be changed to "Latest Published Draft:" as it is
> simply disingenuous and confusing to say that the version on /TR/ is
> more stable than the Editor's draft.

I think it's just a different use of the word "stable" (i.e. the dated 
versions of the spec are stable in that their contents don't change, and 
"Latest Stable Version" is a link that resolves to the most recent one 
of these).  I'm happy to change the wording to avoid "stable" if it's 
confusing, though.

That URL won't always be to a draft, so I'm not sure "Latest Published 
Draft" is exactly the wording we want.  At some point 
http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/ will resolve to a Recommendation, at which 
point previous documents that state "Latest Published Draft" would be 
inaccurate.  "Latest Published Version" would work for me.  (To avoid 
confusion with the "Previous Version" link directly underneath it, I 
might list the "Previous Published Versions".)  Does that work for you?
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 01:48:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:05 UTC