- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:16:34 -0700
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Birkir Gunnarsson <birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 8:09 , Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 25 March 2015 at 14:59, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > While we should be > able to expect that readers would note publication dates and > automatically suspect a document long unupdated > > Major issue here is that multi-page documents only have publication dates on front pages, for example: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/conformance.html#conformance-reqs has no pub date > > Also publication date alone does not provide a clear indication of a document being superseded or outdated, take for example > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ Right, this is like the IETF, where you have to notice ‘obsoleted by’ in the little header at the top of the RFC. The IETF is scared of newer technologies than teletypes :-), we’re not. We can do better, as you say (e.g. floating header/footer). David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 18:17:22 UTC