- From: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:27:04 +0300
- To: Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Revising W3C Process Community Group <public-w3process@w3.org>
10.02.2015, 01:25, "Stephen Zilles" <szilles@adobe.com>: > Comments inline below > Steve Z >> -----Original Message----- >> On 2/9/2015 12:13 PM, David Singer wrote: >>> I think we’re making a mountain out of a molehill here. DItto >>> [recs can have notices like:] >>> “There is a draft of this document in which the working group has corrected >>> a number of errors; you may prefer to work from that.” >>> (with appropriate linking). >>> >>> That means that visitors get the right information: The TR is the document >>> that went through formal IPR review etc.; but there is a document that >>> corrects errors and is probably more suitable as a technical reference. >>> The TR page could also link both (not that I ever visit it, myself; I use a search >>> engine to find things). > > [SZ] This last point is the heart of the problem. Search Engines are more likely to point to out of date copies. AND, people often end up finding a linking NOT to the whole document, but to a section inside that document and do not see the warning at the top of the document. There is a need for a mechanism which shows the warning about a more up-to-date document no matter how one arrives at the document in question. Thanks to the magic of CSS, we have ha such a mechanism, which has been used in documents published on /TR for several years now. I still think this is a non-issue. cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 04:27:37 UTC