- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 22:35:13 -0800
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
On February 22, 2017 at 4:45:45 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. (jackalmage@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: > > There is definitely a 3 way disctinction. ReSpec, in particular, can inject > > information about "issues" and tie them into github issue discussions. > > These are distinct from "notes" (non-normative advice to the reader / > > implementor) and "ednotes" (information the editor wants to capture and > > bring to the attention of a reviewer for future action). > > Note that Bikeshed can do this too; you just tag the issue with the > Github issue number. Shameless plug, but works the same in ReSpec [1]. > It still classifies everything that's a problem > to be resolved as an "issue", and styles them accordingly; I think > that's arguably the right thing to do. > > "Note" styling (green background) should be reserved for actual spec > notes - additional info that is helpful to the reader of the spec. I tend to agree with the above: ednotes probably should not be green. [1] https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/Referencing-GitHub-issues-in-your-spec
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 06:35:46 UTC