W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-aria-editors@w3.org > July 2018

Re: Editors' drafts for 2.2

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 14:21:25 -0400
To: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com>, 'Joanmarie Diggs' <jdiggs@igalia.com>
Cc: 'ARIA Editors' <public-aria-editors@w3.org>
Message-ID: <fbe2b342-79a2-a78a-a906-5cbe9efa6855@w3.org>
On 16/07/2018 12:31 PM, Matt King wrote:
> NO, for apg, the master is apg 1.1. the editor's draft of apg 1.2 is in the apg-1.2. Branch. So, we changed to point to that using rawgit.
rawgit URIs aren't recommended for major use because it's a particularly 
brittle service, so I have to change it for the TR publication.

I thought the intention was that the master branch would be "latest" and 
versioned branches would have subsets of the commits as needed. A single 
"latest" editors' draft should be sufficient in that case. Rawgit could 
be used on version branches for internal review, but no need to point 
the public to that.

If the editors disagree with that, we would need to set up versioned 
editors' drafts in w3c.github.io space. E.g., 
https://w3c.github.io/aria-practices/1.1/ and 
https://w3c.github.io/aria-practices/1.2/
or something. I'm not keen on this but can do it if it's seen as a priority.

On 16/07/2018 11:08 AM, Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
> TM;DG (too monday; didn't grok). ;)
>
> Mind being more specific, pointing to the commit where you corrected
> things, etc.? Apologies for being dense and thanks!!
>
> --joanie
>
Just for aria-practices I guess: 
https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/commit/13cd0df4ddac1335659991319fdb9992974f2650 
I had remembered changing in another spec as well but it was just me 
correcting my own copy-paste error in status section.

Michael
Received on Monday, 16 July 2018 18:21:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 16 July 2018 18:21:33 UTC