"this version" link on manual of style should be "latest version"

[Dan Connolly]

I just realized that the label on the title
page of the manual is misleading:

"This version:
        http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual "

Elsewhere in W3C[1], "this version" indicates a URI
where you can get the dated version you're looking at,
even after the latest version of the document is revised.

But http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual is updated
in place; it's a "latest version" URI.


[1] section "Document Identifiers" of pubrules,
which doesn't seem to have a handy fragment to refer to.
http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=filter&uri=

It's not very explicit about what "this version" means.

I also looked at "Version Management in W3C Technical Reports"
http://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions

but it mostly discusses "latest version" rather than "this version".


The TAG has a possibly-relevant finding in progress...
ironically, it features the same mis-labelling...

On Linking Alternative Representations To Enable Discovery And
Publishing
DRAFT TAG Finding 01 08 2006
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html

--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

[Ian Jacobs-2]

On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 12:27 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

> [1] section "Document Identifiers" of pubrules,
> which doesn't seem to have a handy fragment to refer to.
> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=filter&uri=
>
> It's not very explicit about what "this version" means.

See:
 http://www.w3.org/TR/#versioning

That's on the TR page for people who come to read specs. I don't know
whether that info is better there or somewhere in pubrules. If left
where it is, it's useful to link to it from pubrules, which I don't
believe is currently the case.

DanC, do you have a preference?

 _ Ian
 

> I also looked at "Version Management in W3C Technical Reports"
> http://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions
>
> but it mostly discusses "latest version" rather than "this version".
>
>
> The TAG has a possibly-relevant finding in progress...
> ironically, it features the same mis-labelling...
>
> On Linking Alternative Representations To Enable Discovery And
> Publishing
> DRAFT TAG Finding 01 08 2006
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html
>

--

Ian Jacobs (ij@...)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     [phone]

[Dan Connolly]

On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 12:41 -0500, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 12:27 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>
> > [1] section "Document Identifiers" of pubrules,
> > which doesn't seem to have a handy fragment to refer to.
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=filter&uri=
> >
> > It's not very explicit about what "this version" means.
>
> See:
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/#versioning

Ah; I didn't think to look there.

> That's on the TR page for people who come to read specs. I don't know
> whether that info is better there or somewhere in pubrules. If left
> where it is, it's useful to link to it from pubrules,

yes, please. And from http://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions , perhaps.
And maybe from http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri ... and that
reminds me of http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI , which is another
place to consider adding a link.

>  which I don't
> believe is currently the case.
>
> DanC, do you have a preference?

Where it is makes sense to me.

 
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

[Ian Jacobs-2]

On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 12:49 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 12:41 -0500, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 12:27 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >
> > > [1] section "Document Identifiers" of pubrules,
> > > which doesn't seem to have a handy fragment to refer to.
> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=filter&uri=
> > >
> > > It's not very explicit about what "this version" means.
> >
> > See:
> >  http://www.w3.org/TR/#versioning
>
> Ah; I didn't think to look there.
>
> > That's on the TR page for people who come to read specs. I don't know
> > whether that info is better there or somewhere in pubrules. If left
> > where it is, it's useful to link to it from pubrules,
>
> yes, please. And from http://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions , perhaps.
> And maybe from http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-nsuri ... and that

Added to both.

> reminds me of http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI , which is another
> place to consider adding a link.

Not added; I'm not ready to look at that document closely.

 _ Ian

> >  which I don't
> > believe is currently the case.
> >
> > DanC, do you have a preference?
>
> Where it is makes sense to me.
>
>  
--
Ian Jacobs (ij@...)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                     [phone]

[Susan Lesch]

Dan Connolly wrote:
> But http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual is updated
> in place; it's a "latest version" URI.

Done. Thank you.

> The TAG has a possibly-relevant finding in progress...
> ironically, it features the same mis-labelling...
>
> On Linking Alternative Representations To Enable Discovery And
> Publishing
> DRAFT TAG Finding 01 08 2006
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/alternatives-discovery.html

Yes, though I don't claim to understand all of its implications, I look
forward to seeing updates if that draft changes.

--
Susan Lesch           http://www.w3.org/People/Lesch/
mailto:lesch@...               tel:[phone]
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)    http://www.w3.org/