W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Extension Specification Authoring & Publication

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:10:47 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2=HGoT7U6bde-Af7mZ0j55=0UHD55r+d00j6U6gLi=nAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>, Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Travis Leithead <
> Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> I'll note that for a lot of other extension specs: MSE, EME, sourceset,
> <picture>, at least; they appear to be stand-alone documents.****
>
> I personally think that cloning HTML5.1 just to add one new behavior or
> tag is wayyy too much overhead. Yes, it'll be easy to merge later, but it's
> absolutely terrible for calling attention to the specific nature of the
> extension proposal.
>
>
> I don't think Silvia was proposing cloning HTML 5.1, neither in textual
> terms nor even necessarily in git terms. She was just suggesting hosting on
> GitHub, at least for extensions that aspire to be merged someday.
>

Yes, sorry, I wasn't very concrete. I would indeed recommend to make a
separate spec, but if you want it merged into HTML5.1 at a later time, it
would be much easier to have it on GitHub.


Note that none of our current extension specs include all the rest of HTML.
> Even ones that are created by branching from the html repository do not do
> so.
>

Maybe except for the srcset spec at
https://github.com/w3c/html/tree/w3c-srcset , which has tags that make is
small to get to http://dev.w3.org/html5/srcset/ . That works for me, too,
but it probably asking too much of editors.

Regards,
Silvia.


> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
> ****
>
> I find it ridiculously easy to use respec and whip together a document
> that looks publish-ready without too much pain. At that point, I like to
> host it at mercurial because the access control is easy (vs. dev.w3.org,
> which requires public keys). I also like that mercurial is on a W3C server
> so it looks more official-looking. But I suppose putting it up on github
> works as well.****
>
> My 2có****
> -Travis****
>
> *From:* Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:05 PM
> *To:* Cameron Jones
> *Cc:* public-html-admin@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Extension Specification Authoring & Publication****
> ** **
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> ** **
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:****
>
> (moving to the admin list)
>
> Hi Cameron,
>
> Since we are doing most of our editing work on GitHub, as one of the
> editors I'd like to see it in GitHub in your private repository, preferably
> in a way that we can merge it into the existing spec easily.
>
> HTH.
>
> Silvia.****
>
> ** **
>
>
> Ok, how do i publish it for review? Is a link to the repository from the
> existing proposal sufficient or should i generate and publish a build?
>
> Thanks,
> Cameron Jones****
>
>
>
> You can take inspiration from other extension specs:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ExtensionSpecifications
>
> HTH.
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 10:11:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 December 2012 10:11:38 GMT