As a general rule, I like option #2 for specifications. Is there a reason that we shouldn't do it for the Primer? (One reason might be: if we are going to replace the Primer very often, e.g., with small editorial fixes, then the previous-version-chain becomes too busy and is less interesting.) -Lofton. At 05:05 PM 8/24/2005 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote: >Lynne, > >I like very much the new document, It's very clear. > >Does the WG think that > >Option 1. >I should replace the previous document with this one, > >OR > >Option 2. >the WG would prefer to have a versioning of documents with Latest, >Previous, etc. > >This version: >http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qaframe-primer >Latest version: >http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/08/qaframe-primer-20050824 >Previous version: >http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/06/qaframe-primer-20050623 > > > >-- >Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ >W3C Conformance Manager >*** Be Strict To Be Cool *** > > >Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 22:21:37 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Wednesday, 24 August 2005 22:21:38 GMT