- From: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:36:12 +0100
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C Site Comments <site-comments@w3.org>
On 5 August 2013 16:44, Ian Jacobs wrote:
Hi Ian,
Thank you for your answer!
> The CG publication model is that the URI that is published is
> that of the latest version. Therefore, the expectation is that
> you republish in place.
Interesting. From the fact that we have to publish at least
twice (the first draft then the final version), I inferred we had
to republish every version. What we have for now in EXPath
follows (somewhat) the rules for TR (well at least for XSLT and
XQuery recommendations):
- a "latest version" URI (ending with .../binary)
- a "dated" URI (ending with .../binary/20130730)
- a "versioned final" URI (ending with .../binary/1.0)
So if I understand correctly, we should use the "latest
version" URI for drafts, even though they will point to the final
report once it will have been published (so can't use the
"publish" form to announce a new version of a draft through the
CG website).
Or we could rather continue to use the "dated" URIs, ending up
with several items for different draft versions (if we make sure
we name the reports like "Binary Module, draft 31st July 2013").
So we would have the list of all publications on the CG homepage.
Regards,
--
Florent Georges
http://fgeorges.org/
http://h2oconsulting.be/
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2013 14:37:01 UTC