- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 13:43:44 -0500
- To: Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org>
- Cc: W3C Site Comments <site-comments@w3.org>
Hi Florent, I'm back from vacation. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Some options that come to mind: * Leave things as they are, with two drafts listed on the CG home page. * Remove one of the drafts and replace the "latest version URI" with a URI to a group wiki page (or Wordpress page) that lists all the drafts. * Remove one of the drafts (say, the later one) and edit the specification in place at http://expath.org/spec/binary/20130312 Thanks! Ian On Aug 8, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Florent Georges <fgeorges@fgeorges.org> wrote: > >> 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. > > You are welcome to publish dated drafts if that meets your needs. > But the publication system is only set up for in-place updates, which > I think is the more common scenario. > > >> 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. > > I have two scenarios in mind in particular: > > 1) The "typical" scenario: > > * All drafts are edited in place. > * Final drafts are given dated URIs and are unchanging. Implication: You can't reuse the > latest version URI for final specifications. > > In this scenario, the draft is only listed once on the group's home page. People follow the link > to find the full history page. > > 2) The "WG-like" scenario: > > * The "latest version URI" points to a wiki page that lists the full history of drafts. The group manages > this page manually. Each draft has its own URI and the group manages them as it wishes (e.g., > once published, a draft does not change in place). > > * Final drafts are given dated URIs and are unchanging. (Same as for "typical" scenario). > > Ian > > >> >> Regards, >> >> -- >> Florent Georges >> http://fgeorges.org/ >> http://h2oconsulting.be/ >> > > -- > Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs > Tel: +1 718 260 9447 > > > > -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2013 18:43:46 UTC