- From: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:09:21 +0900
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- 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>
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 http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 01:09:39 UTC