W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2002

(unknown charset) Re: publishing FPWD issue (was Re: Thursday telcon & agenda)

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
Message-ID: <20020117062424.E14975@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
> * 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

Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C's Webmaster
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2002 06:24:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:29 UTC