- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 10:56:28 +0200
- To: james anderson <james@dydra.com>, RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
On 13/04/2026 16:23, James Anderson wrote: > good afternoon; > >> On 13. Apr 2026, at 14:45, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> now that RDF 1.2 Concepts and RDF 1.2 Semantics are published as Candidate Recommendation, our webmaster suggested to me that we may want to have the "version-less" URLs [1,2] point to the 1.2 version (Candidate Rec) rather than the 1.1 version (Rec). > why would one want to create a situation where the document content version is inconsistent? I realize I forgot to add the links "[1]" and "[2]" in the body of my email, which may have created confusion. Let me clarify: Consider the URLs we have for RDF Concepts: * https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts → serves the latest "RDF 1.1 Concepts" (Recommendation) * https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts → serves the latest "RDF 1.2 Concepts" (currently Candidate Recommendation) * https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts → serves the latest recommendation, i.e. "RDF 1.1 Concepts" Different working groups have different policies for the "version-less" URL (the latter). * Some groups have it serve the latest version of the document, even if it is a Working Draft * Some groups have it serve the latest "stable" version of the document (that's what we chose) The suggestion is to consider that a Candidate Recommendation is "stable" enough to update the version-less URL. This is not inconsistent, just a slight variation in what we mean by "stable". > >> I think that is a good idea, and suggest we put this on the agenda of our next meeting. >> >> pa >> >> > --- > james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com > > >
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2026 08:56:30 UTC