- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 14:04:12 +0200
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-json-ld-wg@w3.org
The HL7 FHIR specifications, e.g. http://hl7.org/fhir/2021May/ include link to a directory: <a href="http://hl7.org/fhir/directory.html">Directory of published versions</a> The linked page is pretty populated because it includes all drafts. We tend to navigate to previous version links when we care about drafts so we'd have only a couple rows. PROPOSAL: ask W3M to include a list of published RECs directly in the front matter replacing the current message about being a relic of bygone technology. This comm problem isn't limited to JSON-LD. I believe this optimizes both the message that this is a published standard and that there are other versions when you're ready to switch to them. There are a couple practical variants on this: 1. full list of all RECs visible on each REC. Everything behind the current version would be redundant against the <Previous versions> link. Maybe the biggest list would be XML which has five editions. 2. list of all later RECs visible on each REC. Only XML first edition would have links to all four future editions. Another parameter to play with is rather to apply it retroactively or just to future docs (and json-ld 1.0, so danbri doesn't send his google goons after me). On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 04:07:42PM -0700, Gregg Kellogg wrote: > I’m certainly fine with tweaking the statements on the 1.0 specs, if we can. I believe the thought was that, as the 1.1 specs include everything from 1.0, that they were current, but that shouldn’t imply that the 1.0 specs are inappropriate to cite. > > Gregg Kellogg > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Apr 26, 2021, at 11:58 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > > > > On 4/26/21 2:40 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: > >> My main concern here is with the ability to document Schema.org by saying > >> "For use in search engines, Schema.org can be written in JSON-LD 1.0" and > >> having something reliable to point to. Maybe sometime it'll be possible to > >> say that about 1.1 too. Should we be looking at requesting the superseded > >> status to be restored, or could the popup warning shown on rescinded > >> specifications be made less pushy and upselly? > > > > For what it's worth, I agree with Dan and share his concerns regarding > > messaging to his community of interest. > > > > Perhaps a sticky footer, placed at the bottom of the page, in green/orange, > > that says: "There is a newer version of this specification. For the latest > > version please look at: ..."? > > > > -- manu > > > > -- > > Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ > > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > > blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches > > https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2021 12:04:20 UTC