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: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:22:22 +1000
Message-ID: <CAL1nonL8zQt2ai-cm3vtpkvvvXSUW3oOWzDaLcJ3aVZSADkrNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
> 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.

I would appreciate that very much.

> 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?

Works for me :)

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:23:18 UTC

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