- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:49:02 -0600
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
In specs I work on (JSON-LD and others) ednote is used during development to communicate status between editors. Issues, at tied back to GitHub and cover more long-standing discussions about spec content that are usually not simple editorial points. Please keep ednote. Gregg Kellogg Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 19, 2017, at 7:40 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > >> On 02/19/2017 09:53 PM, Michael Cooper wrote: >> For me keeping the concept of editors' notes separate from regular notes is important. >> >> Regular notes are interpretive guidance about the spec features. >> >> Editors' notes are statements about the production of the spec, such as "this is incomplete", "we really want input on this", >> etc. My practice is to remove editors' notes by Rec (and don't mind if Pubrules wants to enforce that), and I make sure >> they're pretty minimal from CR on, but in Working Draft I use them a lot. >> >> I'm agnostic about the style, for me the different note header is enough but see value in a greater style differentiation. I >> would not want to lose the feature from Respec. > > The CSSWG uses class="issue" for such notes. So the question is, is there a three-way distinction in regular use (note vs. ednote vs. issue) or just a two-way distinction (note vs. issue). > > ~fantasai > >
Received on Monday, 20 February 2017 13:49:10 UTC