Re: Redirect pending when terms move to non-pending

Good point, noted! Thanks :)

Dan

On 13 June 2017 at 20:31, Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
wrote:

> Pending seems a bit different from other extensions, in that it is a
> temporary status. There is value in navigating inside Bib to find all
> bibliographic terms, but if you are navigating inside Pending, and many of
> the terms are no longer pending but are now Core or part of some other
> extension, there is no way to know that without clicking the canonical link
> at the top of the page and then seeing where that takes you.
>
>
>
> The yellow bar at the top of the Pending pages says this term is still
> pending wider review, but for terms that have been approved for the Core,
> that is no longer true.
>
>
>
> -Madeleine
>
>
>
> *From: *Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 1:21 AM
> *To: *Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
> *Cc: *W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Redirect pending when terms move to non-pending
>
>
>
> Thanks. In a sense we already do, in that all "core" terms can be
> navigated to from within an extension, eg http://pending.schema.org/Course
> or http://bib.schema.org/Pension
>
>
>
> Richard Wallis and I have been discussing a more integrated approach where
> subdomains are purely entry points but for now that is the navigation
> structure. You kind of step into an extension and then stay "in it" even
> when looking at terms whose home is elsewhere...
>
>
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On 13 Jun 2017 1:01 am, "Madeleine Rothberg" <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
> wrote:
>
> I just spotted a link to one of the new accessibility properties in a
> document from another organization [1] but they linked to the pending
> version and not the approved version. It appears they don't know the terms
> were formally adopted. Is it possible to have pending links redirect to the
> final pages, so that the change in status is made clear? Of personal
> interest are accessMode, accessModeSufficient, and accessibilitySummary,
> but I assume this should apply to all recently approved terms.
>
> -Madeleine
>
> [1] Library of Congress' MARC proposal NO. 2017-11: Defining New Fields to
> Record Accessibility Content http://www.loc.gov/marc/mac/2017/2017-11.html
>
>
>