Re: Strategy for marking sections as "draft / abandoned / recommended by schemabibex / published at schema.org"?

I also really like how the IETF RFC tool has a color bar at the top indicating the status (you can click on the bar to get the key to the colors).
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988


That way it is more obvious even if you don't remember to look for the right text field.

cheers,
-henry


>________________________________
> From: Dan Scott <denials@gmail.com>
>To: "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org> 
>Sent: Monday, February 3, 2014 10:27 AM
>Subject: Strategy for marking sections as "draft / abandoned / recommended by  schemabibex / published at schema.org"?
> 
>
>Hello:
>
>Per Diane Hillman's blog post at
>http://managemetadata.com/blog/2014/02/03/talking-points-report/ do we
>want to standardize how we're publishing our work on the wiki? Just as
>Diane was led down the wrong path initially with multipe pages around
>holdings, I could envision other similar confusion in the future over
>our historical article/periodical pages, etc.
>
>I propose that we clearly mark at the top of each page the status of
>the page; something like:
>
>Status (<date>): <status>
>
>Where <status> could be one of:
>
>* "Draft"
>* "Abandoned"
>* "Recommended by Schema BibEx (best practice)"
>* "Recommended by Schema BibEx (schema.org extension)"
>* "Published schema.org extension"
>
>Perhaps with some mediawiki-savvy way of tagging the page, as well, so
>that we can survey the pages. (I'm not all that familiar with
>mediawiki, so suggestions welcome!)
>
>Thanks,
>Dan
>
>
>
>