- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:20:29 +1000
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Tuesday, 24 January 2012 at 21:21, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > AFAIK publishing normal working drafts actually has pretty low overhead, > and we should stop being so scared of it. (If that isn't the case we shuld > work out why and how to make it so...) I think there is a misunderstanding that "Last Call" is somehow more stable than a Working Draft (which is evidently not true). If we were to publish a Working Draft now, it would be more "stable" than the previous Last Call…. and the Editor's Draft is even more "stable" because it may have fixed even more stuff the minute after the Working Draft is published. Having said that, I would like to request that the text "Latest Stable Version:" be changed to "Latest Published Draft:" as it is simply disingenuous and confusing to say that the version on /TR/ is more stable than the Editor's draft. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 01:21:10 UTC