W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > December 2018

Re: Bikeshed

From: Natasha Rooney <nrooney@gsma.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:31:01 +0000
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
CC: David Singer <singer@mac.com>, W3C Process CG <public-w3process@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D3DFC36-8D12-448A-9FBB-2F58C76D75DA@gsma.com>
Many +1s for this move. Thanks for the hard work Florian!

Natasha


Natasha Rooney | Web Director | Web Team | GSMA | nrooney@gsma.com<mailto:nrooney@gsma.com> | +44 (0) 7730 219 765 | @thisNatasha | Skype: nrooney@gsm.org<mailto:nrooney@gsm.org>

On 15 Dec 2018, at 02:43, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net<mailto:florian@rivoal.net>> wrote:



On Dec 15, 2018, at 2:05, David Singer <singer@mac.com<mailto:singer@mac.com>> wrote:

looking at the glossary suggests we have work to do to harmonize terms.  e.g. the end of it reads

• W3C Working Draft, in §6.1.2
• WD, in §6.1.2
• WG Note, in §6.1.2
• wide review, in §6.2.3.1
• Working Draft, in §6.1.2
• Working Group Note, in §6.1.2
• Working Groups, in §5.2

we have Working Draft, W3C Working Draft, WD, all defined; WG Note and Working Group Note...

bikeshed allows us to have synonyms, with multiple link terms to the same definition. For instance:
<dfn lt="W3C Working Draft | Working Draft | WD">Working Draft</dfn>

So on the defining side, this is not a case of accidentally defining the same concept multiple times. Some of it is probably intentional and should stay (e.g. Recommendation and REC are both commonly used, and should be defined). But we probably should try to be a little deliberate about which variants we define, and which we use in the process itself.

As for which are defined currently, I started with what was actually used within the Process document, and add some variants to complete logical sets for consistency's sake. For example, the process used/defined: REC, Recommendation, and W3C Recommendation. On the other hand, it had PR, Proposed Recommendation, but not W3C Proposed Recommendation, but I included that anyway.

Maybe I should remove these additions "for completeness", and we do a second pass later to harmonize the vocabulary, and to be more deliberate about which term we define.

—Florian


.
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2018 11:31:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 18 December 2018 11:31:41 UTC