- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:27:46 -0500
- To: Tobie Langel <tobie@codespeaks.com>, spec-prod@w3.org
On 11/16/2016 8:41 AM, Tobie Langel wrote: >> Whatever model we adopt, we also need respec and bikeshed to adopt them >> as well. They don't have builtin support for multiple latest versions. > > I'm not sure how that would work precisely practice, but "polyfilling" > that in both specs using custom metadata fields seems trivial. > > It's the process/policy aspect that seems more tedious to setup at > present. Agreed. We need to sort out the process/policy first. >> Goal is to get the final proposal adopted no later than the AC meeting in >> April 2017 (we don't need AC approval for this, it's just a deadline in >> my mind). Note that, as part of this, he is also looking at revamping >> our approach to the /TR page itself. > > I'm not sure I see the value in having both of these things tied > together. In my mind, if we're going to revamp our latest version links, we should make sure that what we'll end up with something that can be coherent on /TR. > /tr has been a train-wreck since forever. Fixing it is good, but > everyone's used to its current state at present. It's not really a > blocker. It's certainly certainly not a blocker on agreeing on latest version links process/policy and getting our specs to adopt it. > On the other hand, the level-related mess is becoming more painful by > the day. It impacts spec publishing (incorrect URLs), implementors > working on outdated content, authors not reading the right specs, etc. > > The faster this is fixed, the better. +1 Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2016 18:27:52 UTC