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

Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile chaals at yandex.ru
Wed Jan 9 00:21:07 UTC 2019


+1 to Jim's suggestions here.

There needs to be a place to get "the latest version" and there needs to  
be a way to get "this version".

W3C tends to do this well for its specs (until they get to versioning, at  
which they are not very good). IETF rather less so.

chaals

On Tue, 08 Jan 2019 21:54:02 +0100, Jim DeLaHunt <list+uasg at jdlh.com>
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 published (with errata linked), and is obsoleted/superseded by future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
>


-- 
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/


More information about the UA-discuss mailing list