RE: Editors' drafts for 2.2

Hi Michael,

 

>rawgit URIs aren't recommended for major use because it's a particularly brittle service, 

>so I have to change it for the TR publication.

 

Ya, I know ... when James and I discussed this, we thought that the 1.2 editor's draft would garner very little traffic so this wouldn't be an issue for the FPWD. We punted on solving more robustly and settled on rawgit for a near term stopgap.

 

>I thought the intention was that the master branch would be "latest" ...

 

What's different about APG is that we are working on both 1.1 and 1.2 in parallel because 1.1 is still not done. So, we will have two deliverables, each with a latest version until ARIA 1.2 is a recommendation. Then, we will have APG 1.2 as a done product and no more APG 1.1. However, at that point, if there are still features in the recommendation that are not in APG 1.2, we may have a similar parallel track with APG 1.3 and additional releases of APG 1.2.

 

>and versioned branches would have subsets of the commits as needed.

 

We do not have an APG 1.1 branch -- that is master. There is content in the APG 1.2 branch that is not in master. However, we are planning to keep the apg-1.2 branch current with master.

 

>A single "latest" editors' draft should be sufficient in that case.

 

That works for the specs.

 

>Rawgit could be used on version branches for internal review, 

>but no need to point the public to that.

 

Because the apg-1.2 branch is significantly different from master, master is not the latest editor's draft for APG 1.2. Referencing it as such could cause confusion.

 

>If the editors disagree with that, 

>we would need to set up versioned editors' drafts in w3c.github.io space.

>E.g., https://w3c.github.io/aria-practices/1.1/ 

>and https://w3c.github.io/aria-practices/1.2/

>I'm not keen on this but can do it if it's seen as a priority.

 

I would like to discuss something like this with you. I didn't think it would be a priority for the FPWD if we could just use rawgit for now and then fix this later.

 

I also want to change aria-practices.html to index.html right after our publication of APG 1.1 R2. I was thinking that would be a good time to address this issue.

 

Best,

Matt

 

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> 
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 11:21 AM
To: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com>; 'Joanmarie Diggs' <jdiggs@igalia.com>
Cc: 'ARIA Editors' <public-aria-editors@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Editors' drafts for 2.2

 

On 16/07/2018 12:31 PM, Matt King wrote:



NO, for apg, the master is apg 1.1. the editor's draft of apg 1.2 is in the apg-1.2. Branch. So, we changed to point to that using rawgit. 

rawgit URIs aren't recommended for major use because it's a particularly brittle service, so I have to change it for the TR publication.

I thought the intention was that the master branch would be "latest" and versioned branches would have subsets of the commits as needed. A single "latest" editors' draft should be sufficient in that case. Rawgit could be used on version branches for internal review, but no need to point the public to that.

If the editors disagree with that, we would need to set up versioned editors' drafts in w3c.github.io space. E.g., https://w3c.github.io/aria-practices/1.1/ and https://w3c.github.io/aria-practices/1.2/
or something. I'm not keen on this but can do it if it's seen as a priority.

On 16/07/2018 11:08 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:

TM;DG (too monday; didn't grok). ;)
 
Mind being more specific, pointing to the commit where you corrected
things, etc.? Apologies for being dense and thanks!!
 
--joanie
 

Just for aria-practices I guess: https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/commit/13cd0df4ddac1335659991319fdb9992974f2650 I had remembered changing in another spec as well but it was just me correcting my own copy-paste error in status section.

Michael