W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > March 2015

Re: warnings on outdated specs/docs

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:04:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOk_reGz0Ny_1oa-h63-c1ZxnwKi8-MxaZZUu5moYh=0Sh2NBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "ted@w3.org" <ted@w3.org>, Birkir Gunnarsson <birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
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 Can't it just say "This spec is obsolete.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.
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 12:19:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 26 March 2015 12:19:43 UTC