Hmm. I think Lofton's reasoning about keeping track of the document when there are small editorial fixes - does get too busy. I think that option 2 is good - if we can do it for major changes to the document. For example, this new version is not just different in adding the intro and a new section - but if you notice, I changed the name. But, (and now I'm waffling) we should go with the option that takes the least amount of your time to prepare and publish the document. Also, I guess the question is - why would anyone care about the previous documents? O.K., now that I've thought about it ---- I don't have any strong feeling, but if I had to take a stand - as long as its not more work --- #2 - the version-chain shows that we have been working and have produced multiple versions. lynne --lynne At 04:21 PM 8/24/2005 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >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 Thursday, 25 August 2005 00:51:22 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 25 August 2005 00:51:23 GMT