W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: References Re: What are the requirements/problems? Re: Working on New Styles for W3C Specifications

From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:51:30 -0500
Message-Id: <E2F6A742-3155-413E-A507-4C882FA6B1F4@opera.com>
Cc: "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
dropping chairs

Le 14 déc. 2011 à 16:11, Robin Berjon a écrit :
> This brings me to a convention I've been advocating here and there but that hasn't been formalised.
[…]
> The convention is simple:
> 
> [FOO] always points to the latest version, i.e. for W3C that's /TR/foo/
> [FOO-20120315] is the dated version, i.e. for W3C /TR/2012/WD-foo-20120315/

The way I did it for "Specification Guidelines" which is not exactly the same scheme.
Example: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#define-error-gp

    <p>There are typically two approaches (see section 
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#extensibility">4.2.3 Extensibility</a>
    from Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One 
    [<a href="#WEB-ARCH">WEB-ARCH</a>]):</p>

And then in the biblio, the classical

     WEB-ARCH 
Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One, N. Walsh, I. Jacobs, Editors, W3C Recommendation, 15 December 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/ . Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ .



It is a combination of "in situ" link and a reference to the document. 
I don't think there is one size fits all solution. BUT that said we 
have mediaqueries and we can reasonable printable stylesheets.

Basically the HTML User Interaction in the browser doesn't have to be 
the same than the one of the printed document. 

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:52:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:18 GMT