[UA-discuss] Proposal: Handling Numbering of the UASG Documents

[Asmus Freytag]

For comparison, the Unicode Standard has the model where a link 
generally would get you the latest version of a document, but each 
document contains a header with a link to the previous revision of the 
document.

That way, if you want to point people to the latest version of a 
document you can use an "evergreen" link, but if you need to be sure 
that the link goes to a specific version, there's that option as well.

http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/
or
http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/latest

would get the latest version and

http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/2018-05-12/ 


would be a specific version. Each version remaining unaltered once posted.

A./


On 1/8/2019 12:54 PM, Jim DeLaHunt wrote:
> UA Colleagues:
>
> I think the problem Michael points out is a real one, and worthy of 
> attention.
>
> On 2019-01-08 07:03, Michael Casadevall wrote:
>> So currently, the UASG publishes various documents such as UASG 0005 and
>> 0007 and occasionally updates these documents to reflect best current
>> practices. For example, the UA Quick Guide was on Version 9 before it
>> was removed for revision.
>>
>> One thing I'm concerned on is that it's not clear that a document has
>> been updated, nor what has changed from version to version. Furthermore,
>> when dealing with old discussions, a document may have changed from a
>> message or posted....
> Michael proposes one alternative,
>> …to change the numbering and management of UASG documentation
>> to model it around the RFC/IETF where a document is static once
>> published (with errata linked), and is obsoleted/superseded by future
>> documents.…
>
> Another alternative is to keep the document number unchanged, but to 
> have a clearly-defined revision date for each version of a document, 
> and to always cite a revision date along with the document number. So, 
> we would say "UASG012 Email Address Internationalization (EAI): A 
> Technical Overview (v 2018-05-12)" instead of "UASG012" or "Email 
> Address Internationalization (EAI): A Technical Overview".
>
> Whichever we do, I believe we should set editorial standards that each 
> document has a) document title, b) UASG number, and c) revision date 
> clearly on the front cover and in the file name of each document 
> issued. Looking through some existing documents, we seem to be 
> inconsistent about this. It makes documents harder to find and harder 
> to cite.
>
> I believe we should also define standard, persistent URLs for each 
> document, something like:
>
> http://uasg.tech/document/uasg012/email_address_internationalization_EAI_a_technical_overview/2018-05-12/ 
>
>
> and ensure that visiting such a URL with a web browser returns either 
> the document file itself, or a page describing the document and 
> allowing one to download it.  I find it hard to put links to UASG 
> documents into presentations, because it's difficult to figure out 
> which URL to use, and how much to trust it to stay usable over time.
>
> Best regard,
>      —Jim DeLaHunt, Vancouver, Canada
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20190108/999d044e/attachment.html>