- From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:51:30 -0500
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
dropping chairs
Le 14 déc. 2011 à 16:11, Robin Berjon a écrit :
> This brings me to a convention I've been advocating here and there but that hasn't been formalised.
[…]
> The convention is simple:
>
> [FOO] always points to the latest version, i.e. for W3C that's /TR/foo/
> [FOO-20120315] is the dated version, i.e. for W3C /TR/2012/WD-foo-20120315/
The way I did it for "Specification Guidelines" which is not exactly the same scheme.
Example: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#define-error-gp
<p>There are typically two approaches (see section
<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/#extensibility">4.2.3 Extensibility</a>
from Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One
[<a href="#WEB-ARCH">WEB-ARCH</a>]):</p>
And then in the biblio, the classical
WEB-ARCH
Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One, N. Walsh, I. Jacobs, Editors, W3C Recommendation, 15 December 2004, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/ . Latest version available at http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ .
It is a combination of "in situ" link and a reference to the document.
I don't think there is one size fits all solution. BUT that said we
have mediaqueries and we can reasonable printable stylesheets.
Basically the HTML User Interaction in the browser doesn't have to be
the same than the one of the printed document.
--
Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/
Developer Relations & Tools, Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 21:52:15 UTC