Moved to website feedback...
Well, it still "is", as far as I know. At least it "is" at the moment of writing, 2005 says the page update. Don't be fooled by headlines, it is being retired, but it isn't retired altogether yet. Even then, I suppose it would be still correct to say it "is", because the design does not expire and the designation is not retired.
But you make a valid point, I should have been more careful about past/present verbs in the texts, although even then it doesn't give you much of a clue regarding "up-to-dateness". At the time of writing, I was not aware of retirement plans, and I did not anticipate I wouldn't have time to keep all texts up to date. Actually, I did not know yet of how long the site would live at the time of writing those early 'quick' sections.
Anyway, I purposely added the "last update" date on each page, which I think one should always consider, in print and on the internet. But I am painfully aware that last update of the page does not always reflect the time of writing of the (entire) text. Some report a more recent date just because the page code was modified, or just some typo or picture.
That's why the new and "upgraded" sections have a mouse-over dropdown box when you point at that last update date, reporting the date it was published, last revision (all text reviewed and updated), piecemal updates, and other modifications. Which should be somewhat helpful when "up-to-dateness" matters.
Back to Index
Move to Top 
