- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 07:47:11 -0600
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, spec-prod@w3.org
On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:41 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > On 13/02/2014 12:09 , Guus Schreiber wrote: >> The RDF WG is publishing a document as WG Note which hasn't been >> published before [1]. ReSpec complains that a "previous version" is >> missing, and puts in an empty <dt>Previous version</dt>. Are we doing >> something wrong or is a ReSpec update needed? When I removed the >> "Previous version" manually from the static version it passed pubrules. > > It seems likely that Notes will confuse me to the end of my days. > > My understanding of pubrules is that a WG-NOTE needs to have a Previous Version. The NG checker agrees with me (but then again, I wrote it so...). > > For your document it would seem to me that you ought to be using the FPWD-NOTE status. In that case, there is indeed a bug that it requires a Previous Version — that's something I can fix. > > But before I fix anything I'd like to make sure that it needs to be fixed only for FPWD-NOTE and not WG-NOTE. A Working Group Note does not need to have been previously published as a Working Draft. Ian > Ian? > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon > -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 13:47:11 UTC