- From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:10:25 -0700
- To: arun@mozilla.com
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Arun Ranganathan<arun@mozilla.com> wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote: >> >> Looks like the word is getting out about this work; >> there's a pretty favorable article on ajaxian. >> http://ajaxian.com/archives/w3c-publish-first-working-draft-of-file-api >> >> But it's a little confused... >> "The W3C has published a working draft for the File API" >> >> W3C hasn't actually published it just yet. >> >> No wonder they're confused... >> In http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileUpload/publish/FileAPI.html Yeah. Ajaxian should edit that entry to something like: "there is an editors draft in the making" and then presented the goals/objective of the API. Good to get more notice on the API, but saying things like "Arun is a great guy" in that same entry indicates impartiality. >> >> I find >> "This document is a First Public Working Draft. It is not an official >> publication of the W3C." >> >> That's contradictory. Please take out the 1st sentence or something. >> >> It's also labelled "W3C Working Draft 12 August 2009" on the >> title page. >> >> Please delete that subtitle or change it to "editor's draft" >> or some such. See http://www.w3.org/2005/03/28-editor-style >> for some concrete suggestions. >> >> >> > > Fixed; I hope the status is clearer now (you may have to force a reload to > see the changes). > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileUpload/publish/FileAPI.html > I mentioned before that "2006" URI has a link to the latest: | Latest public version: | http://www.w3.org/TR/file-upload/ That page has a previous draft (Robin's?) That latest version:- | File Upload | W3C Working Draft 18 October 2006 AISB, the "2006" uri returns the latest "editors draft" and the "Latest public version" at "/TR/file-upload/" has old content. That should be fixed so that the latest version does truly point to the latest version. I do not know the rules for how W3C usually publishes things, but it is confusing to have the "latest" uri having old content and the "2006" uri having the actual up-to-date editors draft. At the very least, the link to the latest version ought to return the latest up-to-date version. Garrett > -- A* > > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 August 2009 23:11:06 UTC