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

Re: warnings on outdated specs/docs

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:53:00 -0700
Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "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>
Message-id: <BEEAABFE-92C3-4B96-85FF-A2B3D897F14E@apple.com>
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
OK, this is beginning to converge.

1) If the ‘latest version’ link is other than the current document, display the floater, inviting the reader to see the latest version?
  — what if the latest version has significantly different maturity?  i.e. you are looking at PR of 1.0, there is a PR of 2.0 but the latest is a WD of 2.1.  Which does the user want?

2) If there isn’t a ‘latest version’ link, allow anyone to ask that such be added, in the case the automatic system missed it.  E.g. add to WCAG 1.0 a latest version to 2.0?

I realize #2 is manual, but what else do we have?


> On Mar 26, 2015, at 5:48 , Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> 
> Absolutely. Where we have abandoned short names, we should certainly
> turn those into redirects.
> 
> We're currently proposing this as the (soon to be FPWD of) HTML-AAM
> supercedes the older, now to be abandoned document and shortname:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Mar/0065.html
> 
> So, I suppose we should launch a crawler to help find these? That seems
> eminently achievable.
> 
> Janina
> 
> Shane McCarron writes:
>> 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 Can't it just say "This spec is obsolete.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.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
> 			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> 		Email:	janina@rednote.net
> 
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org
> 
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
> 	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 17:53:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 26 March 2015 17:54:00 UTC