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 Can't it just say "This spec is obsolete.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.