- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:29:59 -0500
- To: "Carr, Wayne" <wayne.carr@intel.com>
- Cc: "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 19:33 +0000, Carr, Wayne wrote: > >Instead of an ugly ignorable warning, you prepend "Obsolete" to the spec's title, > >you make the background light grey, you change the top left W3C strip to grey, > >you bold the "Latest Version" link. The most practical would be to detect that in > >JS. > > Altering old publications that are obsolete to say obsolete is a good idea. IETF does that, don't they? > > So only the latest version in TR would not say obsolete. If a draft was abandoned before getting to REC, it could also be marked obsolete with a note that no further work was being done on that particular draft. > > Along with this, if it is easy enough to publish a heartbeat draft, those could be done more frequently so not be so far out of touch with the editors draft. With anything without WG consensus marked as provisional. > > It doesn't seem like any of this would require process doc changes (it doesn't conflict with the process). Seems, the w3c staff could just agree to start doing it. I would note that Charles added this issue into our tracker: [[ ISSUE-2: TR documents which are obsolete or have been "parked" or abandoned Obsoleting TR documents which are obsolete or have been "parked" or abandoned ]] http://www.w3.org/community/w3process/track/issues/2 I'd like to encourage others to do so as well, both for the process and pubrules related items, Philippe
Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 18:30:10 UTC