- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 20:40:04 +0100
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, angelina@mozilla.com, public-nextweb@w3.org
On Monday, July 1, 2013 at 8:35 PM, François REMY wrote: > The most important thing is probably to standardize the words "prollyfill" > and "polyfill" so that people can search relevant repos using github ;-) I file a bug on the TAG to add that to the AWWW document: https://github.com/w3ctag/webarch/issues/3 We can propose some text. > If the idea is to allow peer-review of prollyfills, could we use Github > issues on a special repo (PolyfillReviews) instead of merges to a JSON file? That's similar to what we are proposing to do on the TAG. We've not started on actually documenting reviews, however. (if people want to follow those reviews: https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews) > > This is probably better because we can make comments on the submission, > refers to other repo & issues, include codes... and close them when the > polyfill has been peer-reviewed (people can always reopen the thread when a > new version comes out). Agree. -- Marcos Caceres
Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 19:40:27 UTC