- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:49:06 +0100
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Sunday, April 24, 2005, 6:27:45 PM, Bjoern wrote:
BH> Dear Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group,
BH> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-SVGMobile12-20050413/ has links to
BH> "Latest SVG Mobile Recommendation",
Yes
BH> such links are very confusing,
No. The latest recommendation links to the latest recommendation. How
could it be clearer?
BH> the draft itself continues to be perfect evidence of this as it
BH> refers to incorrect "latest versions" of other documents like SMIL,
BH> please remove such links.
Yes, "latest version" is, as you note, ambiguous. It could mean the
latest (in the sense of most mature) spec, or just the chronologically
latest spec.
Links to "latest" SMIL suffered from that - a link which used to resolve
to the SMIL2.0 Rec later resolved to the SMIL 2.1 WD (and worse, it was
a diff so many internal links broke).
This sort of problem is resolved by differentiating "latest version of
this particular specification" from "latest recommendation of this
specification series", as is done by the SVG Mobile spec and as
recommended by the Manual of Style.
Since SVG Mobile follows the current, correct usage here, we don't plan
to change anything regarding the "latest rec" link.
Your separate, parenthetical comment regarding the SMIL specification
was reported to the appropriate persons and was resolved by them, with
links to
This version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/PR-SMIL2-20050927/
Latest SMIL 2 version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL2/
Latest SMIL Recommendation:
http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL/
Please let us know within two weeks if this clarification does not
satisfy your comment.
--
Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org
Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 13:49:10 UTC