W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Dealing with levels in specs

From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:27:46 -0500
To: Tobie Langel <tobie@codespeaks.com>, spec-prod@w3.org
Message-ID: <8275a9e1-2615-827b-3f6d-0defbd06e69e@w3.org>


On 11/16/2016 8:41 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:
>> Whatever model we adopt, we also need respec and bikeshed to adopt them
>> as well. They don't have builtin support for multiple latest versions.
>
> I'm not sure how that would work precisely practice, but "polyfilling"
> that in both specs using custom metadata fields seems trivial.
>
> It's the process/policy aspect that seems more tedious to setup at
> present.

Agreed. We need to sort out the process/policy first.

>> Goal is to get the final proposal adopted no later than the AC meeting in
>> April 2017 (we don't need AC approval for this, it's just a deadline in
>> my mind). Note that, as part of this, he is also looking at revamping
>> our approach to the /TR page itself.
>
> I'm not sure I see the value in having both of these things tied
> together.

In my mind, if we're going to revamp our latest version links, we should 
make sure that what we'll end up with something that can be coherent on /TR.

> /tr has been a train-wreck since forever. Fixing it is good, but
> everyone's used to its current state at present. It's not really a
> blocker.

It's certainly certainly not a blocker on agreeing on latest version 
links process/policy and getting our specs to adopt it.

> On the other hand, the level-related mess is becoming more painful by
> the day. It impacts spec publishing (incorrect URLs), implementors
> working on outdated content, authors not reading the right specs, etc.
>
> The faster this is fixed, the better.

+1

Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2016 18:27:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 16 November 2016 18:27:53 UTC