Re: JSON-LD 1.0 - "superseded" UI on site is overly harsh and pushy

On Fri, 7 May 2021, 07:44 Ivan Herman, <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> Dan,
>
> the presentation of
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-json-ld-20140116/
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-json-ld-api-20140116/
>
> has now changed. It displays the fact that the specification is superseded
> but, otherwise, it is exactly the same as before.
>

Thanks, that is awesome! I appreciate you getting this fixed and I think it
helps w3c by making its classic works citeable.


> I hope this settles this issue
>

I may send a suggestion to the Process doc team about their use of the word
"abandoned", but I can follow up there directly. As far as making JSON-LD
1.0 citable again we are all good. Thanks again :)

Dan

>
>
> Cheers
>
> Ivan
>
> On 27 Apr 2021, at 15:03, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 27 Apr 2021, at 14:40, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks all. I think there's something positive that could be done here, is
> this something you could raise internally with your W3C team colleagues?
>
>
> You did raise it, Dan :-)
>
> We are looking into this. As usual, this is not something that could be
> done in one day…
>
> In the meantime, the "official", albeit superseded 1.0 spec is here:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2020/SPSD-json-ld-20201103/
>
> that can be used without further ado by the developers.
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
> On Eric's proposal - would this change the process i.e.
> https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#rec-rescind  or just the UI on
> w3.org? I am assuming the latter.
>
> We could say 1.0 is superseded by 1.1, while being more tolerant in the UI
> of the idea that people might want to refer authoritatively (and without
> upselling to superseding vresions) to the earlier stable standards they've
> implemented against.
>
> Goonlessly,
>
> Dan
>
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2021 at 13:04, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <http://schema.org/> by saying
>> > >> "For use in search engines, Schema.org <http://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
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>