W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Spec with issue markers [was: Re: HTML5-warnings - request to publish as next heartbeat WD]

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:12:08 -0400
Message-ID: <4A9291A8.2050704@intertwingly.net>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote:
> James Graham wrote:
>> ...
>> This is now done; it is possible to generate the HTML5 spec with 
>> static inline status markers (pulled from the WHATWG annotation 
>> system) and ISSUE markers pulled from tracker (currently OPEN and 
>> RAISED issues; it should be no problem to add PENDING REVIEW if 
>> necessary). Some sample output is at [1]. My branch of anolis, and 
>> hence http://pimpmyspec.net, has gained the ability to add these 
>> annotations and pimpmyspec.net also gained the ability (at [2]) to 
>> generate a combined annotations/issues file of the type needed as 
>> input when adding issue markers to a spec.
>> ISSUE/section associations are picked up from tracker by looking for 
>> strings in the description field of the form:
>> HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [section1 section2 section3]
>> i.e. a magic identifier followed by a square-bracket-enclosed, 
>> space-separated list of ids.
>> I suggest that we add such status/issue markers to the W3C versions of 
>> the spec henceforth. This would seem to address many of the points 
>> made in favour of publishing the "warnings" draft in the recent poll 
>> without tripping over the substantial objections.
>> ...
> James, thanks a lot for putting this together. Ian, thanks for 
> incorporating it. Manu, thanks for triggering the discussion. And, 
> Maciej thanks a *lot* for the work on actually getting the number of 
> open issues down.


We had previously decided to publish Ian's draft based in a large part 
on a poll entitled "Publish HTML 5 update with or without warnings?" and 
Manu withdrawing his draft.  At the present time we have a single draft, 
which includes warnings.  It differs in that the selection criteria is 
much clearer than what Manu originally proposes.

 From what I hear, plenty of people support this draft, but I 
desperately don't want to reopen the discussion, so I am asking if there 
is *anybody* who would prefer that we publish the editors draft as it 
was before this change was made.

I realize that this is short notice, but I believe that there is a big 
win to be had if we publish the current version including warnings.

> BR, Julian

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 13:12:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:50 UTC