- From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 19:34:27 +0000
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "ted@w3.org" <ted@w3.org>
- CC: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Birkir Gunnarsson <birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
+Ted. This seems like an issue for the Systems Team to tweak their publication process to update specs that are obsoleted by a new publication, more than a process question. I can't imagine anyone objecting to the principle that outdated specs should be flagged as such, but I can imagine that the cost could be non-trivial. Any additional information the Systems Team would need to flag those outdated docs might have to be defined in Pubrules, but I think this is an implementation detail as far as the Process Document is concerned. -----Original Message----- From: Janina Sajka [mailto:janina@rednote.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:27 PM To: David Singer Cc: Steve Faulkner; Birkir Gunnarsson; public-w3process@w3.org; W3C WAI Protocols & Formats Subject: Re: warnings on outdated specs/docs David Singer writes: > > > 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#confor > > mance-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 document being superseded or outdated, take for example 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). > I understand how header/footer can help multi-page, but how does it help for WCAG 1.0? Or for HTML 4.01? Etc. Janina > David Singer > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. > -- Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net Email: janina@rednote.net Linux Foundation Fellow Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Chair, Protocols & Formats http://www.w3.org/wai/pf Indie UI http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 19:34:57 UTC