- From: Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 18:38:19 +0000
- To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- CC: "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
> > Also, it occurred to me while reading that we really want people to review the > editor's draft rather than the working draft. This has two > implications: > > 1. we should add a highly visible piece of text to the start of the WD saying > 'look over here ->' That's a good point. We can remove the pointer to editor's copy when we are doing something more formal than just iterating WDs. I have added text with a closebox. > > 2. perhaps we should have dated versions of the editor's draft (?) I agree that the EDs should have a progression of dated versions. I do keep past versions and date them in the file name. However, the "official" ED should have a well-known URI (think of it as being the "shortname" of the ED). Since I'm using ReSpec (at least at the moment), the ReSpec source file can be the dated version, but the snapshot can live at the "shortname" URL. I ran the spellcheck and the new versions are uploaded. WD: http://inter-locale.com/w3c/Overview(19).html ED: http://inter-locale.com/w3c/Overview(20).html (ReSpec copy is also uploaded and its URL stays the same)
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 18:38:58 UTC