W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: WG-NOTE and Previous Version

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 07:47:11 -0600
Cc: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, spec-prod@w3.org
Message-Id: <6672E451-623E-4F24-A1C5-19AB96988BB4@w3.org>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:19 UTC