Changes to update 1.1 spec to be a 1.1 draft

[jogu]

Change version, change title, add doc history back, remove text about erratas, update github action to publish 1.1 (instead of 1.0).

[jogu]

I think restarting the numbered at -01 is correct. (Certainly it doesn't make sense to carry on from the 1.0 numbering as that would get weird if we do a 1.0 errata). Only question is in -00 is where we should start, not sure there's any hard and fast rule.

I'm not sure if we should change the GitHub action to publish both 1.0 and 1.1 (in case we want to do a 1.0 errata). The GitHub pages url doesn't currently have any version number in it, so I could add -1_1.html and leave 1.0 is is, or add a -1_0.html ending for 1.0 too.

[c2bo]

Does it make sense to keep the old 1.0 markdown next to the 1.1? Should we at least move it to some folder to avoid confusion?

[jogu]

Does it make sense to keep the old 1.0 markdown next to the 1.1? Should we at least move it to some folder to avoid confusion?

Hrm, I'm not sure. So it's unhelpful that at least on my machine the default view of the repo hides the 1.0/1.1 part of the filename so doing something that fixes that may be helpful.

You've also made me realise we probably need to duplicate the examples too.

Should we just move 1.0 and 1.1 (both the md and the examples) into subfolders?

Probably a separate issue, I'm also not sure what to do with the 'diagrams' folder. I suspect it's probably way out of date (doesn't look to have been touched in 3 years) and should be deleted...

[jogu]

Does it make sense to keep the old 1.0 markdown next to the 1.1? Should we at least move it to some folder to avoid confusion?

@c2bo I've created 1.0 and 1.1 directories now (and also updated the GitHub actions so it's publishing both 1.0 and 1.1 version of the spec on GitHub pages - both have a version number now so, after this is merged, I can add a page at the current location that links to the 1.0 and 1.1 pages).

[c2bo]

Does it make sense to keep the old 1.0 markdown next to the 1.1? Should we at least move it to some folder to avoid confusion?

@c2bo I've created 1.0 and 1.1 directories now (and also updated the GitHub actions so it's publishing both 1.0 and 1.1 version of the spec on GitHub pages - both have a version number now so, after this is merged, I can add a page at the current location that links to the 1.0 and 1.1 pages).

I thought it would be more natural to keep the 1.1 version high level and only move 1.0 into a subfolder (since we will be editing this), but this also works for me

[jogu]

I thought it would be more natural to keep the 1.1 version high level and only move 1.0 into a subfolder (since we will be editing this), but this also works for me

I did wonder about that, but I think that'd mean we eventually move the 1.1 spec into a 1.1 folder (when we start on 1.2 etc), and it's nice if the files don't move around I think

[bc-pi]

I did not actually review the 52 changed files but conceptually this makes sense as described to me by @jogu

[bc-pi]

are we (the royal we) planning on doing the same for 4VP (and HAIP eventually)?

[jogu]

are we (the royal we) planning on doing the same for 4VP (and HAIP eventually)?

Yeah, I think that's the plan. I started with VCI just because IAE seemed most likely to be the priority, but if people seem happy with this after we've worked with it for a week or two then we/I/someone can do the same in the VP and HAIP repos.