- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:00:36 +0100
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>, "team-rdf-chairs@w3.org" <team-rdf-chairs@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 18-06-14 20:56, Shane McCarron wrote: > Well... I don't disagree but shouldn't we just fix it? There is no > reason for a note to not have a previous version as far as I know. I don't really care either way (slight pref for prior version present); the main problem is that pubrules says it should have. Thaht conflict requires fixing, I think. Thanks for the help, Guus > > On Jun 18, 2014 2:51 PM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com > <mailto:w3c@marcosc.com>> wrote: > > > > > On June 18, 2014 at 3:30:53 PM, Shane McCarron (shane@aptest.com > <mailto:shane@aptest.com>) wrote: > > The reason the previous version is not showing up is that > document has a > > spec status of WG-NOTE. The logic in respec says that if it is a > NOTE then > > do not show the previous version. I don't know why. Robin? > > I think this has now come up on this list enough time that we should > consolidate or kill one of them. It's an endless source of > confusion. No one's fault, obviously! but we should really address > this. > > -- > Marcos Caceres >
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 20:01:06 UTC