Re: webarch version number

or maybe, "0.9"?
Without the semantic web architecture it can't really be called 1.0.
:)

Hey, I'll go with 2003 or 1st edition.

The latter is my preference, as it will more likely go to rec in 2004 
and will sound like old news.

tim

On Dec 4, 2003, at 17:17, Norman Walsh wrote:

>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> / Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> was heard to say:
> | On Dec 4, 2003, at 12:24 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> |
> |> I forgot to mention this at the meeting, but I really don't like
> |> the version 1.0 at the top of the document.  The technology is at
> |> least version 3.2 by now, the description is hovering on the edge
> |> of moving to 4.0, and the document is at 1st edition.  Any one of
> |> those numbers is better than 1.0.
> |
> | I would agree.  How about calling
> |
> | "Architecture of the World Wide Web: 2003"
> |
> | Failing that, "First Edition" is good.
>
> +1, with a slight preference for "First Edition" as there's a precedent
> for subsequent editions. But if anyone feels strongly, I'm happy to
> vote "concur".
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> - --
> Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
> Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
> reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 
> <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
>
> iD8DBQE/z7J2OyltUcwYWjsRApRcAJ9w8KSbpNHmv8u7hfGj5hZ9AD8aZgCfal37
> 2uG5wSdbx0ZQw+gRVTTb9IU=
> =dFzi
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 17:27:05 UTC