Re: Notes on our chat today

[Doug(s) - what does it matter? Great minds think alike!]

Sounds like a plan! Though I don't think CanIUse.com has the level of
granularity we need, the w3.org pages are - inevitably - the source of
truth.

But I think we've hijacked the thread here. Let's either take this into a
new thread or discuss it on Friday in the teleconference.

+Scott



On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com> wrote:

> [Scott -- Were you referring to me or shepazu (we both had the idea to
> stub missing pages)?]
>
> Actually, all we need is a first cut at auditing the site map to any
> external reference like caniuse and/or relevant w3c standards, and we
> can stub from there, and then clean up and refine as we get closer to
> final.  Progress before perfection.
>
> Given that I/we (the Dougs, just to thoroughly ambiguate Doug S.<g>)
> want to include "what it means and what to do about it" on any stubbed
> page, being able to adjust the stubs over time is part of the goal.
> (hint -- we set a trigger on any change to the official terms/pages
> structure, to resync the stubbed content, just as we tentatively
> "un-stub" it once it is checked out and the first draft is saved, so
> we don't trash some lovely volunteer's work).
>
> DougM (the new guy)
>