- From: (unknown charset) Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:24:24 -0500
- To: (unknown charset) www-qa-wg@w3.org
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002, Olivier Thereaux wrote: > * if we choose the "family" approach, we'll need authorizations from the > director each time and for each part (shortnames and all, see > publication rules [2]) each time, that is only for the first publication, not for the following ones. > * if we choose the "family" approach, we may have trouble linking > through dated documents. No problem if we always link to (fragments of) > latest versions of the other documents. linking to (fragments of) dated > versions of other documents might be a bit painful. That's certainly the main issue. And even if it is an issue, I strongly suggest not to link to the latest version of the documents, since we would lose a lot of controls of what the semantic of the given link would be over the time. When we cross-reference between a document at a date D, it's not very probable that this cross-reference will have the same meaning 2 or 3 drafts later. > "Historically", working groups (CSS, DOM) have chosen the "family" > approach. What will we choose? I think that publishing as separate documents (that is, the "family" approach) makes more sense, since they are quite different documents. The multipart approach does only work IMHO for parts of the same documents. Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C's Webmaster mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 06:24:24 UTC