What "holes" does this show in W3C's argument? I would say that this style doc would respect the technical choices of both twitter and reddit since even though

What "holes" does this show in W3C's argument? I would say that this style doc would respect the technical choices of both twitter and reddit since even though the rules of access changed, the urls themselves didn't. From that document: > At W3C we divide the site into "Team access", "Member access" and "Public access". It sounds good, but of course documents start off as team ideas, are discussed with members, and then go public. A shame indeed if every time some document is opened to wider discussion all the old links to it fail! We are switching to a simple date code now. Thus the correct choice in URL design was indeed made as (AFAIK) no links need to be updated even though the rules for who is allowed to access the content at that url changed. This question of URL design is orthogonal to any debate about the reasons and justifications for restricting access to content that was previously public.