- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:39:27 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> A copy of the spec with the WHATWG annotations in is at [1] (that URL is not
>> expected to be long-lasting). Note how this document makes the relative
>> maturity of the <iframe> ("working draft") and <video> ("last call for
>> comments") sections clear. I understand that some people will think that
>> reusing W3C language is inappropriate; that can be changed. Please bear in
>> mind that this document may contain errors since my spec-processing pipeline
>> is immature; indeed I spotted some encoding issues already.
>
> Wow, this is great! I'd say I'd even prefer even more attention to the
> status annotations, i.e. give them a border or something else to make
> them stand out.
OK I will experiment with making the markers more obvious.
Another idea to throw into the ring is that it would be possible to add
information to the annotations file about whether a section has an
associated tracker issue. That would allow a link to the issue to be
automatically inserted into the status marker along with, possibly, some
explanatory text about the fact that the issue must be resolved before
the next spec phase transition. Obviously some UI to maintain the list
of issues in the annotations file would be needed but that is a solvable
problem.
Received on Friday, 14 August 2009 11:39:46 UTC