Re: 4.0 to 4.01 Transition Issues

[ BTW, csmith, I'm CCing you on the assumption that you aren't actually ]
[ on the 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 <> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 15, 2000 at 5:09 AM, (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specification has been superseded" is all that much better.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

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. :-)

Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2000 00:53:58 UTC