Ann Navarro wrote: > I think perhaps then, the terminology could be clarified. When I see a link > on a document that says "latest version", I read that as the *latest > version of the document I'm currently looking at*, whether it be a draft, > CR, PR, or Rec. If it's to point back to the latest *Rec*, that should be > specified. It points back to the latest stable version of the document. Nothing is more stable than a REC. An other example is the DOM Level 2 HTML: even if there is a PR draft on the W3C site, the latest version is a WD. > (I further think the term and linking habits are managed differently across > working groups, leading to some of the confusion) Don't know about all workings groups but, at least on this case, I tried to be consistent with the others documents. I followed the format of the XML 2nd: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-2e-20000814 PhilippeReceived on Tuesday, 12 December 2000 10:01:24 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:24:52 GMT