W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > June 2018

RE: Updates to CAPTCHA doc - impacts CfC to publish

From: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 20:22:11 +0000
To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, APA WG <public-apa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MWHPR07MB3870C3BFA2FFCB9CA0F578DFAB490@MWHPR07MB3870.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Thank you, Michael, for making and noting the changes. I have reviewed the revised abstract and would support publication of the draft with this arguably substantive change incorporated therein. I think the abstract could clarify that the range of alternatives considered includes variants of CAPTCHA as well as approaches that avoid CAPTCHA entirely. However, this is a clarification that I would gladly leave to be introduced in the subsequent draft.

Where does this leave the working group procedurally? Should the CfC now be reissued with reference to the revised document, or is there a way to handle the changes on the basis of the current CfC?

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 3:56 PM
To: APA WG <public-apa@w3.org>
Subject: Updates to CAPTCHA doc - impacts CfC to publish


I've pushed a bunch of changes to the CAPTCHA document prior to publication, that I believe are all editorial, but are somewhat substantial.

The biggest one to note is the abstract rewritten. The previous abstract seemed to me to have too much values language in it (the word "pernicious" was a clue to that), and it presumed background knowledge we shouldn't assume readers have. The abstract is mean to be a high-level overview of the document, and is automatically pulled into a number of places, so even if we plan to edit later, it could be too late to avoid certain problems if we don't address prior to the first public working draft. I believe my wording is more neutral in tone and adequately introduces the document.

The other noticeable change is with references. The document mainly used a format like "This is discussed in [XMLName]" whereas the W3C Manual of Style (https://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2001%2F06%2Fmanual%2F%23References&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C6b5c083647b542e2e1e908d5db9ee763%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636656397892376559&sdata=Nym8f6dBYqYdwtgyS3XhPBAlzpLy6ro%2BPpzUgP6nCBA%3D&reserved=0>) says the format should be "This is discussed in Namespaces in XML [XMLName]" to introduce the reference during the reading flow. I had to make judgements about how to incorporate these into the prose, but think it's still editorial.

Some references I turned into ordinary links, not bibliography entries. In general, when citing a source, we should use bibliography references, but when just referring to a site or product, a simple link is sufficient.

Another change I had done before opening the CfC to publish, but forgot to merge until after the CfC opened, was to add a list of terms as an appendix. Janina had given me the terms and some pointers towards definitions; I did my best to construct sensible definitions of the terms. I was unable to find definitions for "hot word" and "polymorphism", so those are commented out.

Finally, this document was proposed as a version 2, but because it's a Working Group Note, it doesn't really make sense to version it and leave the old one floating around, as we can simply update the note. So I change the title and shortname so it will simply the old version. The previous version will still be accessible by dated URI, but the new publication will update the URI https://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fturingtest%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C6b5c083647b542e2e1e908d5db9ee763%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636656397892376559&sdata=pCdBJ%2BjLVLp%2BLhUBwMDGPApLK5vIABGGfYp1aiji7A4%3D&reserved=0> immediately, though indicating it as a Working Draft, not a Note until it advances again to that status.

I believe the rest of the changes are clearly editorial. If you have concerns about any of these changes with respect to the documents approval to be published as a First Public Working Draft, please let us know.

Summary of changes:

  *   switch to software license since Note track
  *   update copyright year
  *   genericize product name
  *   square to curly quote conversion
  *   replace quoted titles with cite
  *   lower case bibrefs
  *   bibref cleanup
  *   spell check
  *   abstract rewrite
  *   remove redundant
  *   comment out terms we don't have defs for
  *   capitalization
  *   definitions for most of the terms
  *   first pass on terms from Janina, some of them references instead
  *   update funder acknowledgement to maybe or maybe not the right one
  *   split new and old acknowledgements
  *   retitle introduction
  *   remove unnecessary IDs
  *   character entity fix
  *   add subtitle
  *   unmark as version 2
  *   reference previous note
  *   add Matt May as former editor

________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2018 20:22:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 June 2018 20:22:41 UTC