W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2003

Re: webarch version number

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:47:26 +0100
Message-ID: <358515424.20031205164726@w3.org>
To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

On Thursday, December 4, 2003, 11:17:26 PM, Norman wrote:

NW> Hash: SHA1

NW> / Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> was heard to say:
NW> | On Dec 4, 2003, at 12:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
NW> |
|>> I forgot to mention this at the meeting, but I really don't like
|>> the version 1.0 at the top of the document.  The technology is at
|>> least version 3.2 by now, the description is hovering on the edge
|>> of moving to 4.0, and the document is at 1st edition.  Any one of
|>> those numbers is better than 1.0.
NW> |
NW> | I would agree.  How about calling
NW> |
NW> | "Architecture of the World Wide Web: 2003"
NW> |
NW> | Failing that, "First Edition" is good.

NW> +1, with a slight preference for "First Edition" as there's a precedent
NW> for subsequent editions. But if anyone feels strongly, I'm happy to
NW> vote "concur".

Subsequent editions are normally small updates to roll in errata fixes
rather than big updates. I imagine the next Arch Doc will be a year or
so away and will have material from new findings  incorporated and
cover more ground.

So I would expect the next Arch Doc to not be called 'Second Edition'.
Compare XML second and third edition with XML 1.1

So my preference is to avoid first edition. 2003 sounds good. (1.0
would also work for me, by the way). But I am happy to go with
whatever people are agreeable to. Its not a big issue for me.

 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 10:47:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:40 UTC