RE: (Partial) review of Versioning XML

Thanks Dave, this is very helpful.  I certainly sympathize if your ISV 
isn't helping to maintain stable URIs.  I must say this somewhat 
strengthens my feeling that it would be worth shadowing postings like this 
in the W3C archive, and linking TAG discussion to that, and perhaps to the 
Pacific Spirit copies as well.  That way, when we go back to the archives 
of TAG discussions, we'll have confidence that the referenced materials 
will be available.  I think it may (not sure) also clarify any copyright 
or IP issues relating to the ability of others to include pieces of your 
posting in further discussions. 

I guess I'm saying that while I certainly recognize the value of private 
blogs, I think that substantive W3C discussion is best held on W3C mailing 
lists.  I've held that opinion for awhile, but finding that these links 
are breaking, and that there's real risk that more will break in future, 
seems to increase the importance somewhat.  Thanks!

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
06/19/2007 02:35 PM
 
        To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
        cc:     "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>, "Norman Walsh" 
<ndw@nwalsh.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: (Partial) review of Versioning XML


That entry is a 404 because MT decided to drop the "day" from the
postings for the 4.0 beta, and I can't go back to 3.3 as I need comments
working properly and I want to try openId.

The posting can be found at
http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2007/04/what_do_version_identifiers_identify



I'm really really troubled by all my blog URIs breaking, if only for a
short time.  6 apart clearly doesn't understand "cool uris don't change"
as they break URIs in many different ways each release.  I continue to
try to help them see the light.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 4:43 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: John Cowan; Norman Walsh; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: (Partial) review of Versioning XML
> 
> Dave Orchard writes:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:31 AM
> > > To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
> > > Cc: Norman Walsh; David Orchard; www-tag@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: (Partial) review of Versioning XML
> > > 
> > 
> > > In shorter, a language is a (mathematical) set of XML documents.
> > > Note that this precludes us from talking about *the* 
> language of a 
> > > document, which I consider to be a Good Thing.
> > 
> > I think I'm rapidly getting to the same place, see one post at
> > 
> http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2007/04/19/what_do_version_i
> dentifiers_identify
> 
> Dave: it looks like that blog entry is 404.  In fact, I've 
> been meaning to suggest that when we reference something from 
> one of our blogs that's likely to be important to 
> understanding a TAG or other W3C discussion, I 
> think it makes sense to record a copy in the W3C archive.   I have no 
> problem with also linking the private blog copy, as that 
> makes clear the 
> context of the contribution.   I think it's pretty clear that the 
> persistence characteristics of private blogs are often not 
> nearly as good as those of resources administered by the W3C. 
>  Anyway, I'm curious to know what this posting said.  Thanks.
> 
> Noah
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 19:01:55 UTC