- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:49:23 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, public-website-redesign@w3.org, Denis Ah-Kang <denis@w3.org>, Vivien Lacourba <vivien@w3.org>
Le 15/03/2021 à 16:12, Ivan Herman a écrit : > My problem (I believe I expressed that before) is that the concept of > "family" may easily become too rigid. One specific example: "Digital > Publishing WAI-ARIA Module 1.0". It is under the WAI-ARIA family, put it > may also be put under Digital Publishing (in fact, it was done in the > DPUB IG). That was indeed duly noted (although again, Digitial Publishing WAI ARIA Module claims itself that it is part of the WAI-ARIA family of specifications in its abstract). But multiple hierarchies wouldn't help give the kind of default organization that a single hierarchy does. > I guess my feeling is that a "Family" should more act as a tag. Ie, the > same document should/could belong to several families. There is (and will still be) a mechanism to tag specs that can be used to filter the list. The question here was what could help give greater clarity on the default view of the TR page - the real comparison is not between the ideal classification of our technical reports (if one exists) and this one, but between this classification and the current complete lack of classification. Once the first phase of the TR re-design closes, we can certainly entertain a different default way of presenting our TRs if we find one that is better. And if we find this family classification worse than no-classification at all, we can give that feedback to Studio24 to use the current un-grouped list for the TR page - that's one that will be built in any case since (as the presentation indicates) it will serve as a basis to filtered views. Dom
Received on Monday, 15 March 2021 15:49:27 UTC