W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2006

RE: Agenda of 18 July 2006 TAG teleconference

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:33:10 -0400
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB489FD86.B6D5F60C-ON852571AE.0070694C-852571AE.0070E705@lotus.com>

Well, it's a bit of clerical work, but I have found that the pattern I 
used with metadataInURI  and other similar findings works just fine. Using 
that example, I posted the following files at the time the last draft was 
issued:

Latest Version:  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31  (html)
This Version: 
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31-20060609.html
XML: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31-20060609.xml

I also updated the previous version list in the front matter to list all 
previous dated drafts.  Is there a reason that we shouldn't just use this 
pattern when releasing new drafts for review?  I think it's exactly 
consistent with the advice promoted in Raman's draft finding on generic 
resources.  FWIW:  I find it particularly important to have stable dated 
copies of drafts put up for review, so that comment emails can refer to 
the draft actually commented on.  Two years down the road, it's difficult 
to evaluate a comment if the draft linked from the email has since been 
altered.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
07/17/2006 04:24 PM
 
        To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr>
        cc:     <Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr>, <www-tag@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: Agenda of 18 July 2006 TAG teleconference


This whole note is exceeeeeeeedingly ironic.  We have regularly had
problems getting the right version of the versioning finding from URI
datespace. I *WAS* thinking of trying to come up with a very funny
response somehow relating the version of the document and the uri to the
fact that the newer version removed more of the "xml-centric" nature,
but I couldn't quite connect the dots.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of
> noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:47 PM
> To: Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr
> Cc: Vincent.Quint@inrialpes.fr; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Agenda of 18 July 2006 TAG teleconference
> 
> 
> I note that the agenda links the new draft on versioning as
> "http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning-20060710".  In Firefox, at
> least, that gets you the XML with no stylesheet.  The non dated
version at
> [1] does work, and at least for the moment does indeed resolve to the
July
> 10 draft.    Looks to me like this is a case where our draft finding
on
> versioning might benefit from adherence to the advice in Raman's draft
> finding on generic resources [2] (which, ahem, also does not seem to
have
> a stable link for the dated copy :-( ).
> 
> Noah
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 17 July 2006 20:34:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:41 GMT