Re: ARIA Editor's Drafts and gh-pages branch on GitHub

Thanks Rich,

I made the relevant changes to use the rawGit URL as the Editor's Draft for
SVG-AAM.  If you could merge the pull request here, that will take care of
the latest Editor's Draft clearly identifying itself as such, so it does
not confuse people if I distribute that link:

https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/103

As you said, not much we can do about the out-of-date document on the
w3c.github.io domain until we re-publish, hopefully soon.

Are you suggesting that we should not publish the FPWD of the aria-graphics
module until we have an Accessibility API Mapping section for it?  Or that
we would create an additional spec with the mappings for the new roles?

Amelia


On 4 November 2015 at 09:27, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
wrote:

> Amelia,
>
> Yes, we have been using the rawgit pages to promote the ARIA 1.1 drafts.
> We have been using rawgit for everything.
>
> Github.io are only copied occassionally and are always behind. Michael
> copies these later. They all need to be updated.
>
> This has been working for quite some time. Why are you trying to change
> this now?
>
> When we publish formal TR drafts all the links are updated. We start with
> ARIA 1.1, then we go with Core AAM, then SVG-AAM, etc.
>
> We need to create a Graphics ARIA module and do an AAM for it. We can
> reference the graphics AAM from our SVG AAM spec. We should do this for
> December/January.
>
> For November we should just refresh the SVG-AAM.
>
> I agree we need to update the RAWGit URL for the master branch.
>
> Rich
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Amelia Bellamy-Royds ---11/03/2015
> 05:13:38 PM---Hi Rich et al., The SVG-AAM spec references the GitH]Amelia
> Bellamy-Royds ---11/03/2015 05:13:38 PM---Hi Rich et al., The SVG-AAM spec
> references the GitHub pages URL as the "Editor's Draft"
>
> From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Douglas Schepers <
> schepers@w3.org>, SVG-A11y TF <public-svg-a11y@w3.org>
> Date: 11/03/2015 05:13 PM
> Subject: ARIA Editor's Drafts and gh-pages branch on GitHub
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi Rich et al.,
>
> The SVG-AAM spec references the GitHub pages URL as the "Editor's Draft"
> version of the specs.  However, the gh-pages branch version of SVG-AAM has
> not been updated in 8 months.  The aria-graphics module does not even exist
> in that branch.  Other files on gh-pages have been updated more recently,
> but there doesn't seem to be any sort of coordinated synchronization.   I'm
> not sure what needs to be done to update a given file.  Maybe some editors
> are just pushing their changes to gh-pages and master at the same time.
>
> The main ARIA 1.1 specs now use the RawGit URL (to the master branch) as
> the official Editor's Draft.  I do not know why the decision was made to do
> that instead of using gh-pages, but if gh-pages is not going to be updated,
> then we need to do the same.  It somewhat defeats the purpose of having a
> publicly accessible Editor's Draft, if it is completely disjoint from the
> master files used by the editors.
>
> I would like to bring up the SVG-AAM as an agenda item for the main SVG
> working group, but I would prefer to have a URL to a document that clearly
> identifies itself as the Editor's Draft being discussed!
>
> The fastest fix would be to update the SVG-AAM file to include the RawGit
> URL of the master branch.  We also need to change it so that it clearly
> identifies itself as an Editor's Draft, not a published Working Draft.
> However, you may want to discuss this with the main ARIA team, to decide
> what to do with all the out-of-date files that were published via
> gh-pages.  These are still accessible on the web, and would appear to a
> visitor to be the latest Editor's drafts.
>
> Best,
> Amelia
>
>
>
>