- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:22:22 +1000
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Marcos Caceres: > >> 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. > > > I think it's just a different use of the word "stable" (i.e. the dated > versions of the spec are stable in that their contents don't change, and > "Latest Stable Version" is a link that resolves to the most recent one of > these). I'm happy to change the wording to avoid "stable" if it's > confusing, though. I would appreciate that very much. > That URL won't always be to a draft, so I'm not sure "Latest Published > Draft" is exactly the wording we want. At some point > http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/ will resolve to a Recommendation, at which > point previous documents that state "Latest Published Draft" would be > inaccurate. "Latest Published Version" would work for me. (To avoid > confusion with the "Previous Version" link directly underneath it, I might > list the "Previous Published Versions".) Does that work for you? Works for me :) -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 03:23:18 UTC