- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:53:00 -0700
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "Michael Champion (MS OPEN TECH)" <Michael.Champion@microsoft.com>, "ted@w3.org" <ted@w3.org>, Birkir Gunnarsson <birkir.gunnarsson@deque.com>, "public-w3process@w3.org" <public-w3process@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <public-pfwg@w3.org>
OK, this is beginning to converge. 1) If the ‘latest version’ link is other than the current document, display the floater, inviting the reader to see the latest version? — what if the latest version has significantly different maturity? i.e. you are looking at PR of 1.0, there is a PR of 2.0 but the latest is a WD of 2.1. Which does the user want? 2) If there isn’t a ‘latest version’ link, allow anyone to ask that such be added, in the case the automatic system missed it. E.g. add to WCAG 1.0 a latest version to 2.0? I realize #2 is manual, but what else do we have? > On Mar 26, 2015, at 5:48 , Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote: > > Absolutely. Where we have abandoned short names, we should certainly > turn those into redirects. > > We're currently proposing this as the (soon to be FPWD of) HTML-AAM > supercedes the older, now to be abandoned document and shortname: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2015Mar/0065.html > > So, I suppose we should launch a crawler to help find these? That seems > eminently achievable. > > Janina > > Shane McCarron writes: >> Okay - but in this case could we just redirect that short name to 2.0? I >> mean, seriously. That's what we did with RDFa when the short name >> changed. My understanding is that this is what is supposed to happen as a >> matter of course when a short name changes. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ >> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-rdfa-syntax-20081014/ >> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/ >> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-rdfa-core-20150317/ >> >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 26 March 2015 at 04:00, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Can't it just say "This spec is obsolete. Click the 'latest version' >>>> link to see the latest version? This could be generically applied to every >>>> old spec. Or at least almost every. >>> >>> >>> Unfortunately for some specs, WCAG 1.0 for example >>> >>> >>> There is no link to the latest version (i.e. wcag 2.0) >>> >>>> Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT >>> >>> unlike HTML 4.01 >>> >>> Latest version of HTML:http://www.w3.org/TR/html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> SteveF >>> HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Shane McCarron >> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, 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/ David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 17:53:58 UTC