Re: Updates to CAPTCHA doc - impacts CfC to publish

Hi Michael,

Can you please re-share the draft URL?

Thanks.

JF

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote:

> I've pushed a bunch of changes to the CAPTCHA document prior to
> publication, that I believe are all editorial, but are somewhat substantial.
>
> The biggest one to note is the abstract rewritten. The previous abstract
> seemed to me to have too much values language in it (the word "pernicious"
> was a clue to that), and it presumed background knowledge we shouldn't
> assume readers have. The abstract is mean to be a high-level overview of
> the document, and is automatically pulled into a number of places, so even
> if we plan to edit later, it could be too late to avoid certain problems if
> we don't address prior to the first public working draft. I believe my
> wording is more neutral in tone and adequately introduces the document.
>
> The other noticeable change is with references. The document mainly used a
> format like "This is discussed in [XMLName]" whereas the W3C Manual of
> Style (https://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#References) says the format
> should be "This is discussed in Namespaces in XML [XMLName]" to introduce
> the reference during the reading flow. I had to make judgements about how
> to incorporate these into the prose, but think it's still editorial.
>
> Some references I turned into ordinary links, not bibliography entries. In
> general, when citing a source, we should use bibliography references, but
> when just referring to a site or product, a simple link is sufficient.
>
> Another change I had done before opening the CfC to publish, but forgot to
> merge until after the CfC opened, was to add a list of terms as an
> appendix. Janina had given me the terms and some pointers towards
> definitions; I did my best to construct sensible definitions of the terms.
> I was unable to find definitions for "hot word" and "polymorphism", so
> those are commented out.
>
> Finally, this document was proposed as a version 2, but because it's a
> Working Group Note, it doesn't really make sense to version it and leave
> the old one floating around, as we can simply update the note. So I change
> the title and shortname so it will simply the old version. The previous
> version will still be accessible by dated URI, but the new publication will
> update the URI https://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/ immediately, though
> indicating it as a Working Draft, not a Note until it advances again to
> that status.
>
> I believe the rest of the changes are clearly editorial. If you have
> concerns about any of these changes with respect to the documents approval
> to be published as a First Public Working Draft, please let us know.
>
> Summary of changes:
>
>    - switch to software license since Note track
>    - update copyright year
>    - genericize product name
>    - square to curly quote conversion
>    - replace quoted titles with cite
>    - lower case bibrefs
>    - bibref cleanup
>    - spell check
>    - abstract rewrite
>    - remove redundant
>    - comment out terms we don't have defs for
>    - capitalization
>    - definitions for most of the terms
>    - first pass on terms from Janina, some of them references instead
>    - update funder acknowledgement to maybe or maybe not the right one
>    - split new and old acknowledgements
>    - retitle introduction
>    - remove unnecessary IDs
>    - character entity fix
>    - add subtitle
>    - unmark as version 2
>    - reference previous note
>    - add Matt May as former editor
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion