W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2007

RE: (Partial) review of Versioning XML

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:20:39 -0700
Message-ID: <BEBB9CBE66B372469E93FFDE3EDC493E390936@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>, "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

It's not the ISV, it's the blogging software.  While sympathetic to your
feeling that shadowing postings would help ensure non-broken links, I
think that's just part and parcel of trying all this new stuff out.  I
think you are missing part of the point of the "decentralized web 2.0",
and are suggesting making this process too centralized and bureaucratic.
I'm not too interested in doing double pointers and duplicating any and
all possibily relevent content into w3c archives.   I think a little
flexibility as all this technology will do us fine.  

I note that you can read the content, and whenever people have pointed
out link problems in the past, we've managed to work things out.  The
404 is perhaps the greatest invention of the past couple of decades.

Cheers,
Dave 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 12:02 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: John Cowan; Norman Walsh; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: (Partial) review of Versioning XML
> 
> Thanks Dave, this is very helpful.  I certainly sympathize if 
> your ISV isn't helping to maintain stable URIs.  I must say 
> this somewhat strengthens my feeling that it would be worth 
> shadowing postings like this in the W3C archive, and linking 
> TAG discussion to that, and perhaps to the Pacific Spirit 
> copies as well.  That way, when we go back to the archives of 
> TAG discussions, we'll have confidence that the referenced 
> materials will be available.  I think it may (not sure) also 
> clarify any copyright or IP issues relating to the ability of 
> others to include pieces of your posting in further discussions. 
> 
> I guess I'm saying that while I certainly recognize the value 
> of private blogs, I think that substantive W3C discussion is 
> best held on W3C mailing lists.  I've held that opinion for 
> awhile, but finding that these links are breaking, and that 
> there's real risk that more will break in future, seems to 
> increase the importance somewhat.  Thanks!
> 
> Noah
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
> 06/19/2007 02:35 PM
>  
>         To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
>         cc:     "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>, "Norman Walsh" 
> <ndw@nwalsh.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
>         Subject:        RE: (Partial) review of Versioning XML
> 
> 
> That entry is a 404 because MT decided to drop the "day" from the
> postings for the 4.0 beta, and I can't go back to 3.3 as I 
> need comments
> working properly and I want to try openId.
> 
> The posting can be found at
> http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2007/04/what_do_version_iden
> tifiers_identify
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really really troubled by all my blog URIs breaking, if only for a
> short time.  6 apart clearly doesn't understand "cool uris 
> don't change"
> as they break URIs in many different ways each release.  I continue to
> try to help them see the light.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com 
> [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 4:43 PM
> > To: David Orchard
> > Cc: John Cowan; Norman Walsh; www-tag@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: (Partial) review of Versioning XML
> > 
> > Dave Orchard writes:
> > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:31 AM
> > > > To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> > > > Cc: Norman Walsh; David Orchard; www-tag@w3.org
> > > > Subject: Re: (Partial) review of Versioning XML
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > In shorter, a language is a (mathematical) set of XML documents.
> > > > Note that this precludes us from talking about *the* 
> > language of a 
> > > > document, which I consider to be a Good Thing.
> > > 
> > > I think I'm rapidly getting to the same place, see one post at
> > > 
> > http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2007/04/19/what_do_version_i
> > dentifiers_identify
> > 
> > Dave: it looks like that blog entry is 404.  In fact, I've 
> > been meaning to suggest that when we reference something from 
> > one of our blogs that's likely to be important to 
> > understanding a TAG or other W3C discussion, I 
> > think it makes sense to record a copy in the W3C archive.   
> I have no 
> > problem with also linking the private blog copy, as that 
> > makes clear the 
> > context of the contribution.   I think it's pretty clear that the 
> > persistence characteristics of private blogs are often not 
> > nearly as good as those of resources administered by the W3C. 
> >  Anyway, I'm curious to know what this posting said.  Thanks.
> > 
> > Noah
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > Noah Mendelsohn
> > IBM Corporation
> > One Rogers Street
> > Cambridge, MA 02142
> > 1-617-693-4036
> > --------------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 19:21:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:52 UTC