RE: Add a 'Date reviewed' field to techniques and failures



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]


> It shouldn’t, if it is framed as a review date. Review & publish are different, I
> would expect things to be reviewed more often than they are published.
>
> If something was published 6 years ago and hasn’t been reviewed in that time, is
> it still valid?


Yes. As I understand it, the only way to revise a formally published W3C note is to publish a new one; and in the course of publishing the revised note, there's an obligation to review its entire content to ensure that it's still appropriate and applicable - that was my point.
>
> Having a last-reviewed date enables us to mark it as fresh, even if it hasn’t
> changed.
>

It isn't clear how this would differ from just publishing a revised W3C note, for example with some techniques or examples changed or added. Everything within it has to be reviewed before it's published on the W3C Technical Reports page.



________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2016 13:21:08 UTC