- From: Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:24:51 +0200
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMK=o4dFs=opL2XskuVREfMUE3zyD+ceaZ4YScjvMqDrQys+Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for providing some background, Philippe. Wasn't aware of the context. On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote: > On 04/16/2015 09:43 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: > >> Separation between style and content--which incidentally is how I heard >> about Web standards even before I had published (or should I say authored?) >> my first Web page--should let us change styles without affecting any of the >> legal requirements we have or what am I missing? Frankly, if, as a >> standards boy, we write technology for separation of content and style, >> promote it as a best practice, then not apply it to the documents we >> publish, I find we just loose credibility. >> > You're assuming all authors of previous documents wouldn't mind to have > the style of their documents changed. Past experiences showed that it's not > the case. This is not just technical or a resource challenge here. I actually wasn't aware there were dramatically different spec styles and assumed that was more of a bug than a feature. Frankly, this is not how publishing is generally done, and I fail to understand the benefits of this strategy. If there are rules in place that make it impossible to change the style of >> already published documents (which seems bizarre, I've never heard someone >> claiming a Comic Sans version of the constitution diverges from the >> original text), can we just freeze pre 2015 specs, then change those rules >> and shift to a continuously deployed solution for new specs? >> > There are no such rules. We change the style in the past and had to revert > it in fact. > > I'm proposing that we put such rule on ourselves to simplify the way > forward for the time being. The other path of trying to change past > documents failed so far for various reasons. To me, the automatic > publication system or our switch to https are more important than changing > the style of the first edition of XML 1.0 or the style of SOAP 1.2. Agreed. I assumed a common HTML structure along with a common stylesheet which could have been changed easily. I mean, I applaud trying to find creative solutions to this problem that >> has been going on for years, but this feels about the same as >> administration's website that aren't available outside of office hours >> (yes, this exists). >> > > I would note that it doesn't prevent from solving the problem of old > documents in the future. It's just something where I don't think we should > spend the time on for the moment. I'd prefer the energy to go into the > modern tools proposed by Robin. Oh agreed. Wasn't aware it would be time consuming to do so I assumed that it would be simpler. So my suggestion given this context is to go with pre 2015 style and continuous deployment for new specs. --tobie
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 15:25:22 UTC