Re: ReSpec and PERs

I lied - its a bug in our specs.  We had Rec information hardcoded for
whatever reason.  Probably because ReSpec didn't used to do as good a job
on the SoTD.  Anyway, thanks again.  I will effect repairs AND add some
code about PER to ReSpec.

On Monday, December 1, 2014, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the quick reply.  I think this means that my draft PERs I
> produced today are wrong, in that they still contain the REC boilerplate.
> That's a ReSpec bug.    They say something like:
>
> This document has been reviewed by W3C Members, by software developers,
> and by other W3C groups and interested parties, and is endorsed by the
> Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used
> as reference material or cited from another document. W3C's role in making
> the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote
> its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and
> interoperability of the Web.
>
> This Proposed Edited Recommendation reflects minor editorial changes and
> changes to references. W3C Advisory Committee Members are invited to send
> formal review comments on this Proposed Edited Recommendation to the W3C
> Team until 1 February 2015. Members of the W3C Advisory Committee will find
> the appropriate review form for this document by consulting their list of
> current WBS questionnaires.
>
> uggh.  I will look into it right away.
>
>
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2014, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ij@w3.org');>> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 1, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Good idea.  Ian, is there boilerplate?
>>
>> From pubrules [1]:
>>
>>  "Publication as a Proposed Edited Recommendation does not imply
>> endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be
>> updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is
>> inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress."
>>
>> Is that what you are looking for? (There are other bits in [1] for PER's,
>> so go to town! :)
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?year=2014&uimode=filter&filter=Filter+pubrules&filterValues=form&docstatus=per-tr&patpol=w3c&rectrack=yes&normative=yes&procrev=2005&prevrec=none#docreqs
>>
>> >
>> > On Monday, December 1, 2014, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > On Dec 1, 2014, at 20:26, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I know that PERs are pretty rare, but we in the RDFa working group
>> are doing 3 or 4 right now.  It turns out that ReSpec doesn't have anything
>> in the SoTD template for handling PERs really.  Like reviews, end dates,
>> etc.
>> > >
>> > > I am inclined to add it so that the next group doesn't get surprised
>> like we did.  Any objections?
>> >
>> > LGTM.
>> >
>> > Might want to loop in Ian to approve whatever prose is needed for this.
>> >
>> > --tobie
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Shane McCarron
>> > Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Shane McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>
>

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.