Re: New QA Framework Primer - version 2005-08-24

Hmm.  I think Lofton's reasoning about keeping track of the document when 
there are small editorial fixes - does get too busy.

I think that option 2 is good - if we can do it for major changes to the 
document.  For example, this new version is not just different in adding 
the intro and a new section - but if you notice, I changed the name.

But, (and now I'm waffling) we should go with the option that takes the 
least amount of your time to prepare and publish the document.  Also, I 
guess the question is - why would anyone care about the previous documents?

O.K., now that I've thought about it ---- I don't have any strong feeling, 
but if I had to take a stand - as long as its not more work --- #2 - the 
version-chain shows that we have been working and have produced multiple 
versions.

lynne

--lynne


At 04:21 PM 8/24/2005 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>As a general rule, I like option #2 for specifications.  Is there a reason 
>that we shouldn't do it for the Primer?
>
>(One reason might be:  if we are going to replace the Primer very often, 
>e.g., with small editorial fixes, then the previous-version-chain becomes 
>too busy and is less interesting.)
>
>-Lofton.
>
>
>At 05:05 PM 8/24/2005 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
>
>>Lynne,
>>
>>I like very much the new document, It's very clear.
>>
>>Does the WG think that
>>
>>Option 1.
>>I should replace the previous document with this one,
>>
>>OR
>>
>>Option 2.
>>the WG would prefer to have a versioning of documents with Latest,
>>Previous, etc.
>>
>>This version:
>>http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/qaframe-primer
>>Latest version:
>>http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/08/qaframe-primer-20050824
>>Previous version:
>>http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/2005/06/qaframe-primer-20050623
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
>>W3C Conformance Manager
>>*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 25 August 2005 00:51:22 UTC