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

Re: Editor's Response in the proposed process (with particular note of spec diff links)

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:05:34 -0700
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <0542E56A-B533-4EF9-A88D-9ED6ABC52AAC@apple.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>

On Oct 20, 2009, at 9:33 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If  
>> you are
>> satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug  
>> to CLOSED.
>> If you have additional information and would like the editor to  
>> reconsider,
>> please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to  
>> the full
>> HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this  
>> bug, and
>> suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a  
>> tracker
>> issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see  
>> this document:
>> <http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html>.
>>
>> Status: ["Accepted"/"Partially Accepted"/"Rejected"]
>> Change Description: ["no spec change", or explain actual spec change]
>> Rationale: [give rationale for change or lack of change here]
>
> Is it ok to just point to the diff for the change description?

If you feel that is adequate for explaining what was changed, then  
sure. (I expect exceptions would be where you did something similar to  
what was asked but subtly different in a potentially important way, or  
if the spec change is huge and worth summarizing; I'm happy to leave  
it to your best judgment.)

>
>
>> The other piece of information we would like in every resolved  
>> bugzilla
>> bug is a link to the relevant revision of the spec. I've talked to  
>> Ian
>> about this so far, not yet other editors. He is including the  
>> bugzilla
>> bug number in every commit. Ian tells me that, given the way he edits
>> the spec (with a long processing pipeline before the change is fully
>> committed, and often multiple edits in flight), it is awkward to  
>> include
>> a diff link in the bug at the time the bug is resolved.
>
> Actually since I started including the bug number in the commit, I  
> just
> just made the commit script post the diff to the bug. For example:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7416#c2
>
> Is that ok?

Looks great to me. Indeed, that diff looks a lot nicer than what I  
suggested linking to. Thanks!

I've updated the decision policy document to reflect that we now  
expect the boilerplate text and the spec diff link.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2009 06:06:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:09 UTC