W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Putting version control changelog links in spec

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:05:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDqC+3PFSf0qbJHESVi8NHyWdkemOZy1tpV7OAcQY=nUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: w3c-css-wg <w3c-css-wg@w3.org>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:44 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> One piece of feedback I got, in
> https://twitter.com/SimeVidas/status/301524101674192897 , was that
> it was great to see a ChangeLog in a spec.  (This is linked from a
> well-hidden part of
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-css3-transitions-20130212/#status but
> was also more prominent in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Feb/0330.html .
> (Amusingly enough, I actually realized I should update it before
> publishing; typically only the Apple folks update the ChangeLog
> file; I'd much rather not have a ChangeLog file since they just
> duplicate what's in the version control system and increase the
> chance of getting it wrong.)
> I think that we should perhaps make it a practice to link from the
> spec to its history in version control.  In other words, we could
> link from the transitions spec to either:
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/log/tip/css3-transitions/Overview.src.html
> or to the revision-specific version of it.  We could do this in a
> parenthetical after the Editor's draft link in the header, or
> further down (in the status of this document section, or in a
> changes section).
> Thoughts?

I'm fine with it as long as it doesn't take up too much space.  I
think a new <dt> would be too much, but after the ED link sounds fine.

Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 22:06:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:17 UTC