W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > October 2013

quick way to eol TRs -> was Re: [admin] Updating /TR/shortname for shelved work items

From: Wayne Carr <wayne.carr@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 10:13:34 -0700
Message-ID: <525D77BE.6060301@linux.intel.com>
To: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com
CC: anssi.kostiainen@intel.com, public-device-apis@w3.org
There apparently is a simple way to publish a /TR/shortname that 
indicates the draft is no longer worked on [1].  You can publish a 1/2 
page Group Note that just says why the draft isn't being worked on 
anymore.  That has all the previous links to the TR and editor's draft.  
So you don't have to go through rechecking the previous TR to republish 
that with the note because you aren't republishing the actual draft in 
what replaces the /TR/shorname/.  You're just publishing the note.

Here's an example of where that was done before[1].

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-acss

That seems a quick way to indicate in the short name that the draft is dead.



On 10/9/2013 5:23 PM, Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com wrote:
> Comment inline - apologies somehow this email slipped through my mail queue.
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
>
> On Oct 8, 2013, at 2:49 AM, ext Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm hearing there has been confusion around the status of the shelved deliverables of this group.
>>
>> Thus I'd like to ask where are we in terms of publishing /TR/shortname snapshots of the following shelved work item to clarify their status:
>>
>> * Calendar API
>> * Messaging API
>> * System Information API
>> * Pick Media Intent
>> * Pick Contacts Intent
>> * Web Intents Addendum - Local Services
>>
>> While the Editor's Drafts of all the above include the following prominent note:
>>
>> [[
>>
>> The Device APIs Working Group is currently not pursuing the approach outlined in this draft, so it should be considered historical. Please treat this document with caution and do not reference it or use it as the basis for implementation. The domain covered by this document is still within the scope of the Working Group as defined in its Charter. The Working Group may pursue an alternative API design that is based on the current Web browser security model.
>>
>> ]]
>>
>> ... the /TR snapshots point to older versions without the note, and unfortunately people seem to more often find the /TR snapshots instead of the EDs.
>>
>> I have two proposed how to address this issue:
>>
>> * Publish NOTEs of all the above on /TR
>> * Redirect /TR/shortnames to the EDs (if allowed process-wise?)
>>
>> As this is a generic issue, I'd like to ask the Chair to clarify how to resolve this. Also, has there been a W3C-wide decision on this?
> Well, my understanding is that we publish these as notes with appropriate shortname and that is what the URL resolves to  - the Note.
>
> Editors drafts have no standing as such, but the Editors draft link in the published Note should suffice.
>
> Does that answer the question?
>> On a related note, I noticed the TR index page (http://www.w3.org/TR/) has been updated recently (as announced at [1]) to include links to Nightly Drafts (aka Editor's Drafts). While this is a good improvement, it does not solve the issue of http://www.w3.org/TR/shortname pointing to obsolete versions.
> TR should point to the officially published version, not editors drafts.
>
> Once we publish the Notes the items should be done, so this should all be a moot question for those.
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Anssi
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2013JulSep/0076.html
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 17:14:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:01 UTC