RE: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points to Anne's document https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html. I think it would be ideal to change the label to e.g. See Instead or Maintained Version or Replaced By. Framing the WHATWG as a source of Editor's Drafts for the W3C is unnecessarily combative.
RE: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14
From: cha...@yandex-team.ru [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru] That doesn't work with the way W3C manages its work and paper trails. I guess I was just inspired by Mike Smith earlier saying something along the lines of don't let past practice constrain your thinking as to what can be done in this case, and was hopeful we could come to the even-more-optimal solution. In any case, maybe we could also add meta name=robots contents=noindex to this and previous drafts?
Re: CfC: publish a WG Note of Fullscreen; deadline November 14
08.11.2014, 14:43, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me: From: Arthur Barstow [mailto:art.bars...@gmail.com] OK, so I just checked in a patch that sets the Latest Editor's Draft points to Anne's document https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/default/TR.html. I think it would be ideal to change the label to e.g. See Instead or Maintained Version or Replaced By. Framing the WHATWG as a source of Editor's Drafts for the W3C is unnecessarily combative. Agree that it's the wrong framing, and the point is that the current W3C work is recognised as being supereseded... cheers -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
Re: CfC: publish WG Note of XHR Level 2; deadline November 14
08.11.2014, 14:46, Domenic Denicola d...@domenic.me: From: cha...@yandex-team.ru [mailto:cha...@yandex-team.ru] That doesn't work with the way W3C manages its work and paper trails. I guess I was just inspired by Mike Smith earlier saying something along the lines of don't let past practice constrain your thinking as to what can be done in this case, and was hopeful we could come to the even-more-optimal solution. In any case, maybe we could also add meta name=robots contents=noindex to this and previous drafts? I'd object to doing that. While some search engines sometimes provide odd results for queries that match a series of drafts (I know, we're guilty of that too), overall I think it is helpful to be able to find oddities that were in a draft for a while. In particular it supports people doing a little bit of investigation on their own, rather than making it necessary to find someone who was around at the time and can give a clear and comprehensive explanation of how and why a decision was made. Something that *would* make sense to me is to start adding schema.org metadata for documents. And checking that we can e.g. explain that some document is superseded by another one. I'll go put my schema.org hat on and chase that down... cheesr -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex cha...@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
