- From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
- Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 19:38:54 +0000
- To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Cc: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On 05/02/2018 17:52, lisa.seeman wrote: > I can make a list of significant changes. That seems sensible. > > Léonie, is that enough? That would be perfect. Thanks Lisa. > > > All the best > > Lisa Seeman > > LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter > <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa> > > > > > ---- On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 19:27:56 +0200 *John > Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com>* wrote ---- > > So... > > I know that GitHub is the tool of choice these days at the W3C, but > here I *really* think that if we moved the editorial work over to a > wiki page at this point, that we'd have what we need. Wikis provide > the kind of historical change data that we're looking for here, and > once the heavy lifting is done, we could then move back to GitHub, > (or just publish the darned thing). I suspect it's simply a matter > of choosing the right tool for the job, rather than trying to pound > square pegs into star-shaped holes... > > My $0.05 Canadian. > > JF > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk > <mailto:tink@tink.uk>> wrote: > > With HTML for example, we ask the Editors to add a bullet to the > changelog whenever they make a significant change to the spec. > It takes perhaps 2 minutes extra effort to do it. > > I'd also argue that commit logs are not the most usable of > things. If you're used to working with Github it's ok, but my > impression is that many in this WG do not use Github regularly > and so do not have that level of familiarity. > > > > On 02/02/2018 16:27, Michael Cooper wrote: > > My personal view is that a link to github commit history is > sufficient to meet the spirit of the Process document advice > James referenced. For Rec-track stuff I support going > further with practices that have emerged. That said, if it's > the will of the WG to require an actively managed change log > in order to feel comfortable giving standing publication > consent, then that's the WG decision. I manage the change > log for WCAG 2.1, and it's a lot more work than it seems, so > I am *not* prepared to take that on for the COGA gap > analysis. We will need to ensure that the document editors > accept this responsibility. Once we sort that out hopefully > we can move forward with a decision. Michael > > > On 02/02/2018 6:54 AM, Léonie Watson wrote: > > > On 01/02/2018 22:43, Michael Cooper wrote: > > I need to point out that the COGA Roadmap and Gap > Analysis is not a spec - it's a Note-track document. > Therefore I don't think it should be held to the > practices of specs. Change logs are great in specs, > and in ARIA we use them even without standing > consent to publish on the books. But Note-track > documents are often edited in less discrete chunks > than specs, making it hard to make a meaningful > change log. To ensure there is WG review, we > explicitly plan for review opportunity and explicit > WG consensus before transition to Note status, so I > don't think things will sneak past the WG long-term. > It is certainly possible to put a link to the github > commit history in the document, which people who > really want to track its evolution can use. But if > the WG doesn't support a standing consent to publish > over this issue, the TF will have to ask for WG > approval every time it wants to publish a draft, > which will be more burden on all of us and more > bureaucracy than I feel is needed for a Note-track > document. > > > Without a changelog you're expecting WG members to be > able to identify what's changed between one WD and the > next. If, as you say, the changes in this case are in > "less than discrete chunks", that means it'll be even > harder to quickly review what's changed. > > The changelog doesn't need to be complicated. It just > needs to be a list of high level changes, plus links to > the relevant Github commits. For example: > > "Section X updated to include Y + [link to Github commit]". > > That way someone can review the changelog and decide > whether they want to review the change in detail (using > the commit log), or not. > > > Léonie. > > > Given all that, is it really needed to have a change > log in this Note-track document to get consent for > standing Working Draft publication authority? > > Michael > > > On 01/02/2018 1:12 PM, Léonie Watson wrote: > > -1 > > In the absence of a CFC that summarises the > changes between updates, there needs to be a > changelog in the spec that makes it easy for WG > members to ascertain what's changed for > themselves. Currently the spec doesn't have such > a thing. > > > On 01/02/2018 17:15, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote: > > Call For Consensus — ends Monday February > 5th at 12:30pm Boston time. > > The AGWG discussed a decision to grant > standing permission for the COGA Task Force > to publish updated working drafts of their > Gap Analysis. > > The First Public Working Draft (FPWD) of > their Gap Analysis is available here: > https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-coga-gap-analysis-20171207/ > > Please note there is a concurrent CfC on > this same question in the Accessible > Platform Architectures Working Group (APA > WG). Members of both groups are asked to > respond on both CfCs. > > Call minutes: > https://www.w3.org/2018/02/01-ag-minutes.html#item01 > > If you have concerns about this proposed > consensus position that have not been > discussed already and feel that those > concerns result in you “not being able to > live with” this decision, please let the > group know before the CfC deadline. > > Thanks, > > AWK > > Andrew Kirkpatrick > > Group Product Manager, Accessibility > > Adobe > > akirkpat@adobe.com > <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> > <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com > <mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> > > http://twitter.com/awkawk > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C54093524ef264326424008d51cd66c05%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636446629619786436&sdata=c5UP0xiniJIppvd6Esu1XA%2FbX1ykpABkhgCCmBp%2Fht8%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > > -- > @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe <mailto:tink@toot.cafe> Carpe diem > > > > > -- > John Foliot > Principal Accessibility Strategist > Deque Systems Inc. > john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com> > > Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion > > > > -- @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem
Received on Monday, 5 February 2018 19:39:35 UTC