- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 14:23:24 +0100
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
I trust Dominique and Olivier for doing the right thing. > 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 08:23:26 UTC