W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > February 2012

AW: marking old TRs as obsolete - RE: "Living Standards"

From: Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich <k.scheppe@telekom.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:58:56 +0100
To: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-Id: <63930C77AA7F3A4C8C7D5D7F2BB2FFEA7CFD9BD0B3@QEO40072.de.t-online.corp>
Hi Wayne,

Thanks for splitting off threads that might feasibly be put into issues :-)

Kai

> -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Carr, Wayne [mailto:wayne.carr@intel.com]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 9. Februar 2012 20:33
> An: public-w3process@w3.org
> Betreff: marking old TRs as obsolete - RE: "Living Standards"
> 
> >Instead of an ugly ignorable warning, you prepend "Obsolete" to the
> spec's title,
> >you make the background light grey, you change the top left W3C strip
> to grey,
> >you bold the "Latest Version" link. The most practical would be to
> detect that in
> >JS.
> 
> Altering old publications that are obsolete to say obsolete is a good
> idea.  IETF does that, don't they?
> 
> So only the latest version in TR would not say obsolete.  If a draft
> was abandoned before getting to REC, it could also be marked obsolete
> with a note that no further work was being done on that particular
> draft.
> 
> Along with this, if it is easy enough to publish a heartbeat draft,
> those could be done more frequently so not be so far out of touch with
> the editors draft.  With anything without WG consensus marked as
> provisional.
> 
> It doesn't seem like any of this would require process doc changes (it
> doesn't conflict with the process).  Seems, the w3c staff could just
> agree to start doing it.
Received on Friday, 10 February 2012 07:59:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:35:07 UTC