W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Notes on our chat today

From: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 10:18:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHZLcPrnuL9A-EJ13zZ-edK=1hLJ9QEGDaY4bq+adVNmLsZJ3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com>
Cc: Julee <julee@adobe.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
[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)
>
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 18:18:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:40 UTC