Re: [w3ctag/spec-reviews] A spec style/structure checklist? (#136)

> Do we have an ‘empty skeleton’ or template that we maintain, that we can point people at?

The WICG starter kit includes a ReSpec and BikeShed template... which point to helpful guides produced by the TAG (the API design guide, and the guide on specs that make use of promises). 

https://github.com/WICG/starter-kit/tree/master/templates

As I'm not a spec novice, I'm not in a position to judge if those are good or not - so feedback welcome if they should be improved. 

> Also, the AB is concerned that the /TR page is an un-navigable list (‘graveyard’ has been used). Templates or other work that help classify specs (some semantic tagging) might help.

Could you kindly clarify what you mean by "semantic tagging"? 

> I like templates, as they could include sections which are not uniformly present — how to report an issue and how to see reports of issues; security and privacy considerations; and so on

BikeShed and ReSpec's templates include links to GitHub repos... and both processors get upset if you don't have security and privacy considerations sections. 

 

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/136#issuecomment-249522109