W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Using ReSpec.js for publication as Interest Group Note

From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 13:52:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4ED4D595.1000600@w3.org>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: spec-prod@w3.org
On 11/29/2011 12:48 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Salut!
>
> W3C has too many document types ;-)
>
> On Nov 29, 2011, at 12:09 , Francois Daoust wrote:
>> - ReSpec.js generates TR URIs starting with "IG-NOTE", whereas pubrules stick to "NOTE"
>
> This should now be fixed.

Cool!

>
>> - ReSpec.js generates the usual patent disclosure boilerplate in the Status of This Document section, but the text is not the same for IG notes (see bullet 12 of Document status section in pubrules [1]). Instead of the usual text, it should rather be:
>> [[ The disclosure obligations of the Participants of this group are described in the [charter]. ]]
>
> This should be fixed as well. You will need to specify the new charterDisclosureURI configuration setting.

Yeepee!


>  One additional thing that gets generated for IG-NOTEs is the "The group does not expect this document to become a W3C Recommendation." paragraph. It seemed appropriate, but I'm not sure. If you think it shouldn't be there, please let me know it's simple to not have it be generated.

I'm slightly leaning towards not including that sentence but I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I'd say that a Note is often a final stage and saying that the document is not expected to become a W3C Recommendation still suggests that it could become something else. The SOTD should already contain a customized paragraph mentioning the group's expectations about potential further steps.

Francois.
Received on Tuesday, 29 November 2011 12:53:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:18 GMT