W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > March 2015

RE: warnings on outdated specs/docs

From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH) <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 19:34:27 +0000
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "ted@w3.org" <ted@w3.org>
CC: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Birkir Gunnarsson <birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB488642B4C29112E1AE5668E970B0@BLUPR03MB488.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
+Ted. This seems like an issue for the Systems Team to tweak their publication process to update specs that are obsoleted by a new publication, more than a process question. I can't imagine anyone objecting to the principle that outdated specs should be flagged as such, but I can imagine that the cost could be non-trivial.  Any additional information the Systems Team would need to flag those outdated docs might have to be defined in Pubrules, but I think this is an implementation detail as far as the Process Document is concerned.

-----Original Message-----
From: Janina Sajka [mailto:janina@rednote.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:27 PM
To: David Singer
Cc: Steve Faulkner; Birkir Gunnarsson; public-w3process@w3.org; W3C WAI Protocols & Formats
Subject: Re: warnings on outdated specs/docs

David Singer writes:
> > On Mar 25, 2015, at 8:09 , Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 25 March 2015 at 14:59, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> > While we should be
> > able to expect that readers would note publication dates and 
> > automatically suspect a document long unupdated
> > 
> > Major issue here is that multi-page documents only have publication dates on front pages, for example:
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/conformance.html#confor

> > mance-reqs has no pub date
> > 
> > Also publication date alone does not provide a clear indication of a 
> > document being superseded or outdated, take for example 
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/

> Right, this is like the IETF, where you have to notice ‘obsoleted by’ in the little header at the top of the RFC.
> The IETF is scared of newer technologies than teletypes :-), we’re not. We can do better, as you say (e.g. floating header/footer).
I understand how header/footer can help multi-page, but how does it help for WCAG 1.0? Or for HTML 4.01? Etc.


> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf

	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/

Received on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 19:34:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 25 March 2015 19:34:59 UTC