Great! Again, not high priority. Really.
mav On May 18, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Thanks for the feedback. I recall adding a bunch of anchors to the CG process: > http://www.w3.org/community/about/ > > I'll take your advice and go add some for the cg legal agreements. > > Ian > > On 17 May 2012, at 4:05 PM, Vickers, Mark wrote: > >> In discussions with W3C legal staff and member legal staff about W3C >> agreements, a nice feature of some W3C agreements is that we can pass a link >> to a specific section of those agreements, e.g. >> >> >> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-resign >> >> However, the availability of internal links in W3C agreements seems to be >> very inconsistent, in three categories: >> >> 1.. Visible links: The best agreements have a Table of Contents and >> clickable links in sections: >> >> >> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-resign >> >> 2. Hidden links: Other agreements have no visible links, but the underlying >> document has id attributes which can be used for linking, but only by the >> technically savvy: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2009/12/Member-Agreement#terms >> >> 3. No links: Some agreements have no internal links at all: >> >> http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/ >> >> It's disappointing that the more recent agreement for CGs is the least >> linkable! >> >> It would be great if all W3C agreements were republished consistently, with >> visible links to each numbered section. >> >> Note that this is not the highest-priority request. >> >> Thanks, >> mav >> >> >> >> > > -- > Ian Jacobs ([email protected]) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ > Tel: +1 718 260 9447 >
