>> It might be more sensible for old versions of documents to
>> carry a clear
>> warning at the top (as the UKOLN document does but perhaps using a
>> larger and/or bolder font) along the lines of
>>
>> This document is OUT OF DATE - please use the current version.
>>
>> where 'current version' links forward to the 'current'
>> version using the
>> generic URL (rather than a specific version URL),
>> http://dublincore.org/documents/dc-xml-guidelines/ in this case.
>
>This is what DCMI does with superseded recommendations, see e.g.
>http://dublincore.org/documents/2003/11/30/dcq-html/.
>
>We don't do that with links from Proposed Recommendations to the final
>Recommendation, but maybe we should -- or at least make the "Latest
>version" link more prominent.
I think we should. The subtlety of the difference between
proposed rec -> rec
and
superceded rec -> rec
is probably lost on most readers (even those inside DCMI) so I think
they should be handled in the same way.
>> Perhaps even adding an "OUTDATED" background to old documents
>> would make it crystal clear?
>
>We looked at that at some point but if I remember correctly, there was
>an argument that backgrounds and other display features are not always
>visible (e.g. screen readers, line-mode browsers) so we decided for the
>warning in the title.
Fair point... though I was suggesting doing so *in addition* to putting
something in the document, not instead of it.
>Someone suggested that we do automatic redirects from old versions to
>the latest version but then we realised that people may make valid use
>of older versions (e.g. when they link a translation to a particular
>version of the document).
Agreed.
Andy.
|