W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > January 2016

Re: Working on the VCTF Use Cases

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:08:37 -0800
Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@halindrome.com>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, "public-webpayments-ig@w3.org" <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-Id: <87CDA685-FF7E-4957-8D19-8462DB2CEBB5@greggkellogg.net>
To: Daniel Burnett <danielcburnett@gmail.com>
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:41 AM, Daniel Burnett <danielcburnett@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Guys, I'm checking into the possibility of duplicating the WebRTC github setup for our work.  Dominique Hazaël-Massieux, developer of many of the tools editors have been using, including the PubRules checker, has been building up tooling for us in WebRTC, including Travis scripts.  I think we could benefit from borrowing what he's set up.
> 
> I will ask the WebRTC Chairs in today's WebRTC editors' call if they have any problems with it, and if not I'll talk with Dom to see what would be needed.  We have a few publication oddities that would need to be adjusted.
> 
> Regarding repositories, many groups differ in opinion on how separated the different specs in their groupls should be.  Having started with the two primary WebRTC specs being together but eventually separating them because they progressed independently, I would highly recommend a separate repository for each but with a common initial name, e.g., vctf-use-cases for this document.

I’d like to better understand the reasoning and experience behind using separate repositories for different specs. The CSV on the Web group (http://github.com/w3c/csvw <http://github.com/w3c/csvw>) had four specs and three notes under way on different timelines with no real problems from using a single repository, and there were advantages from being able to share common examples, bibliographies, and other tools for synchronizing shared components among the specs.

Gregg

> -- dan
> 
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@halindrome.com <mailto:shane@halindrome.com>> wrote:
> No - I don't think they have been published yet.
> 
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org <mailto:ij@w3.org>> wrote:
> 
> > On Jan 19, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@halindrome.com <mailto:shane@halindrome.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Today in the VCTF call I and a few others offered to get the use cases into W3C form and cleaned up.  I would like to get started on this straight away.
> 
> Hi Shane,
> 
> Do you have a link to the minutes of the meeting? Thanks,
> 
> Ian
> 
> >
> > I know that we are working on github [1].  Is there any reason not to put the documents in that tree?  And if they are in that tree, does it make sense to put then under some top level folder (documents?) or should each document be in its own top level folder (usecases)?
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/w3c/vctf <https://github.com/w3c/vctf>
> >
> >
> > --
> > -Shane
> 
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org <mailto:ij@w3.org>>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs <http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs>
> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447 <tel:%2B1%20718%20260%209447>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Shane
> 
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2016 17:09:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:26 UTC