RE: warnings on outdated specs/docs

Comment inline below
Steve Zilles

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)
> [mailto:Michael.Champion@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 12:34 PM
> To: Janina Sajka; David Singer; ted@w3.org
> Cc: Steve Faulkner; Birkir Gunnarsson; public-w3process@w3.org; W3C WAI
> Protocols & Formats
> Subject: RE: warnings on outdated specs/docs
> 
> +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 outdated specs should be flagged as such, but I can imagine that the cost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 need to flag those outdated docs might have to be defined in Pubrules, but I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
[SZ] If we were to do this today, your right the cost could be significant (and boring). There will likely be another way in the future. The CSS Working Group is working on Headers and Footers in CSS. [There is a draft http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-gcpm/ which has (historical) information on Headers and Footers. Implementation plans are far less clear, but use of HTML for eBooks will help drive this forward.] Since the team is allows to make changes to Stylesheets without any other process, Headers and/or Footers could be introduced on historical documents without changing their content, only their Stylesheet. That would solve Janina' problem.
> 
> -----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 Subject: Re: warnings on outdated specs/docs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.
> 
> Janina
> 
> > David Singer
> > Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> >
> 
> --
> 
> Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200
>    sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net

>   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 22:35:44 UTC