Re: [webvtt] Spec editing

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:34:29 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Simon,
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>> I'd like to propose (and implement) some changes in the spec editing
>> department for WebVTT. Feedback appreciated.
>>
>> * Convert to Bikeshed. Both for personal preference and I think it's  
>> better
>> at handling cross-spec xrefs, and it doesn't suffer from FOUC when  
>> loading
>> the spec.
>
> Sure!
>
>
>> * Stop using https://github.com/foolip/webvtt-webhook - I don't know  
>> what we
>> should do instead but I don't particularly fancy maintaining a custom
>> webhook for WebVTT. Anne van Kesteren has offered to maintain a webhook  
>> if
>> we were to move the spec to WHATWG. Personally I wouldn't mind that,  
>> but I
>> don't have strong opinions about where the spec should live.
>
> Don't forget that there are two groups involved with the publication
> of WebVTT: the CG and the Timed Text WG.

Right.

> WebVTT was never published through WHATWG, but always through W3C CVS
> at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/webvtt/ .

It was originally part of the HTML spec, published through WHATWG and  
edited by Hixie, before you took over editing.

https://github.com/whatwg/html/commit/f4751b825eb8d9c62a558fe4632912141d760a1d

> By publishing the editors draft to http://dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/ ,
> we didn't need to have a separate W3C editors draft from the WHATWG
> one.

Why would there be a need to have two editors' drafts?

> Also, the standards docs which go to http://www.w3.org/TR/webvtt1/ are
> more easily published through Echidna from CVS.
>
> Having said this - if you have a better way of publishing to /TR/ ,
> that would be very welcome.

OK. Mike Smith says Echidna is the best way to publish stuff on TR/, so I  
take his word for it. :-)

>> * Move from bugzilla to GitHub issues. It seems the barrier to entry is
>> lowered by discussing issues in GitHub.
>
> Depends on whose barrier we're talking about. The Web world would more
> easily participate, yes. The TTWG probably not.

What is the barrier for the TTWG? When discussing barrier to entry, what  
is most relevant in my opinion is the barrier for new contributors.

> In the past we avoided having to run both. I personally don't mind
> moving to GitHub issues (I prefer that bug tracker, too), but somebody
> has to move all the issues. :-(

We don't necessarily need to move the issues. We can keep the old issues  
in bugzilla and file new ones on GitHub. This seems to work relatively  
well for the HTML spec. But if people would prefer to have the issues  
moved, I can take care of that.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 08:51:39 UTC