W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2013

Re: References and Modularity

From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:09:21 +0900
Message-Id: <98BFE106-9D6E-4F8C-A021-5DE71A6132C9@la-grange.net>
Cc: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>

Le 1 juin 2013 à 17:04, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Is there any part of www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ you disagree with?
> […] There's no need to reference a dated version.
> Standards for (web) software require active maintenance so using
> references that won't change over a decade is the wrong optimization.

Dated versions, md5 hashtags, any kind of schemes that identify a specific version in time is irrelevant in that discussions. Versioning systems are exactly the same thing than a dated space with smaller increments. 

The interesting questions are along these axis:

1. How does a user (implementer) find the last version?
2. How does a user (historian, lawyer) find the nth version?
3. How does the document informs users that a nth version is not anymore the one to follow for his/her specific usage?
4. What are the expectations for this version with regards to certain constraints and users.
   - implementers
   - lawyers 
   - users
   - etc.

The issue with dated versions at W3C in the current context is not the fact of using/pointing to a dated version, but what *some* dated versions mean in the process.

In the things we do not do very well at W3C (and any versioning systems) is linking to n+1 (forward linking).

Karl Dubost
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 01:09:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:56 UTC