- From: Tobie Langel <tobie@codespeaks.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:47:09 +0100
- To: spec-prod@w3.org
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016, at 00:42, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Liam R. E. Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > > Currently I think the idea is for /TR/foo to go to a Wikipedia > > Disambiguation Page :) listing the versions. Certainly I wouldn't want > > (say) www.w3.org/TR/xml to go to an editor's draft, since XML is > > stable. Same with XQuery or XPath. Going to the latest Rec seems fine > > too. Different people want different things from /TR though, and > > different WGs and specs work in different ways. I'm fine with Tab's > > approach for CSS but not fine with it for some other groups. > > The whole point of this exercise is getting to a consistent future for > *all* the groups. It kinda defeats the purpose to have one URL > structure for CSS and different ones for other WGs. ^_^ > > I'm okay with /TR/foo going to a disambiguation page, at minimum > pointing to the latest published TR-level document and the ED. > That'll probably break some links in CSS specs, but our EDs get > auto-built, and we can mass-republish our TR-level stuff. Then > /TR/foo-1, etc can go to the TR-level documents, and /TR/foo-latest > can go to the ED. Couldn't agree more. I accidentally emailed Liam only when replying earlier but said as much: The lack of consistency has been W3C's biggest hurdle. It would be nice to solve that. --tobie
Received on Monday, 21 November 2016 23:47:38 UTC