W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Re: publishing FPWD issue (was Re: Thursday telcon & agenda)

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:23:24 +0100
Message-Id: <200201171323.g0HDNOM30793@zidane.inria.fr>
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

I trust Dominique and Olivier for doing the right thing.

> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002, Olivier Thereaux wrote:
> > * if we choose the "family" approach, we'll need authorizations from the
> > director each time and for each part (shortnames and all, see
> > publication rules [2]) 
> 
> each time, that is only for the first publication, not for the following
> ones.
>  
> > * if we choose the "family" approach, we may have trouble linking
> > through dated documents. No problem if we always link to (fragments of)
> > latest versions of the other documents. linking to (fragments of) dated
> > versions of other documents might be a bit painful.
> 
> That's certainly the main issue. And even if it is an issue, I strongly
> suggest not to link to the latest version of the documents, since we
> would lose a lot of controls of what the semantic of the given link
> would be over the time. When we cross-reference between a document at a
> date D, it's not very probable that this cross-reference will have the
> same meaning 2 or 3 drafts later.
>  
> > "Historically", working groups (CSS, DOM) have chosen the "family"
> > approach. What will we choose?
> 
> I think that publishing as separate documents (that is, the "family"
> approach) makes more sense, since they are quite different documents.
> The multipart approach does only work IMHO for parts of the same
> documents.
> 
> Dom
> -- 
> Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
> W3C's Webmaster
> mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 08:23:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:09 GMT