Re: 4.0 to 4.01 Transition Issues

[ BTW, csmith, I'm CCing you on the assumption that you aren't actually ]
[ on the www-validator@w3.org list (haven't seen you here before). Let  ]
[ me know if you are so we can save some bandwidth. :-)                 ]

On 14.02.00 at 23:32, Christian Smith <csmith@barebones.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 15, 2000 at 5:09 AM, link@tss.no (Terje Bless) wrote:
>
>>Uhm, well, I'm not really sure pointing to a page saying "This
>>specification has been superseded" is all that much better.
>
>Nah, I think this is perfect. It lets the user know immediately that they
>should be using something other than what they are using, points to the
>current version and also points to the full content of the previous
>version.

But we aren't trying to migrate people to HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0. We are
pointing people to the specification for the variant they have chosen.
Forcing users through a sign that sez "Alice doesn't live here any more" is
just plain bull headed. If you want to evangelize the Right Thing there
are better places to do it (like the preamble to the validation results).

That should, IMO of course, be a Note and not a new version of the
specifications document. By all means link to it from all prose concerning
the HTML specifications, but not as a normative reference or formal
specification. If you have to, issue a new version of the specification
whose sole change is to add a link to that Note or to change the "Status of
this Document" section to what the 1991225 version has.


Not that I feel very strongly about this, you understand, but to the extent
that I actually care, that's my opinion on it. :-)