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

Re: Working on the VCTF Use Cases

From: Daniel Burnett <danielcburnett@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:12:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+EnjbJrZt0HW+6A3ewRF6AzxN6uSPLe2jfe9=gHjSSPXT5H0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@halindrome.com>
Cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, "public-webpayments-ig@w3.org" <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
FYI, the WebRTC chairs have no problem with us copying the WebRTC spec
archive to start.  It uses Travis to do some auto-checks, but we may not
need that when we start.

Dom says he's willing to help if we need it.

So there are two potential issues with starting from the WebRTC archive
model.  First, the group does most of its work in 'master', while we would
probably want to do our work in 'gh-pages' as most groups do in order to
have the github.io version be the current editors' draft.
Second, if we decide we want to use the Travis scripts there may be some
significant makefile changes needed in order to accommodate multiple
documents.

However, neither one of these is really a big deal for getting started.
Ian, what would you need from us in order to set up an archive on the w3c
github account?  Once we have that I can create the template document there.

Or, if someone else is itching to use a different starting point, please
say so.

-- dan


On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Daniel Burnett <danielcburnett@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Guys, I'm checking into the possibility of duplicating the WebRTC github
> setup for our work.  Dominique Hazaƫl-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.
>
> -- dan
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Shane McCarron <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> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On Jan 19, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Shane McCarron <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
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > -Shane
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>>> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Shane
>>
>
>
Received on Monday, 25 January 2016 19:13:00 UTC

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