- From: Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 00:03:02 +0900
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, 2008-09-19 15:46 +0100: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Michael(tm) Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote: > > Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, 2008-09-19 09:35 -0400: > >> Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest/#send > >> > >> Oh, right. I keep forgetting that the spec actually on the main W3C site > >> has no bearing on reality... Is there a good reason it's there at all? :( > > > > It's intended in part to be a way to keep all our law-abiding > > citizen readers in the general public informed about what progress > > if any the group is making on the spec. Those of us who are > > actually members of the Mongols, Boozefighters, Bandidos, or other > > MCs should always follow the editor's draft instead. > > This does bring up the wider issue of the importance of Editor's > drafts. I think more emphasis should be put on the standard W3C > template for WDs to point to an editor's draft (if one is publicaly > available). Most specs get grossly outdated within a few days of > publication on the TR page. OK, that's something that's somewhat actionable and so something I might be able to actually get done. We already have a small amount of flexibility in the design of WDs we publish. If somebody with half a lick of design sense (i.e., not me) can come up with a good way to represent that emphasis you describe above without totally fubarring up the current titlepage design, we might be able to actually get it done. Something other than ASCII art, I mean. Or marquee or blink (as fond as I am personally of those). --Mike -- Michael(tm) Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/
Received on Friday, 19 September 2008 15:03:38 UTC