Re: Submitting corrections to the road map

we are proofreading the latest version at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aNl2uIkNlbch1QXoBHY675DC9vnOuoKFq20arP1q3Oo/edit# can you add it to that? Alos please look at the design requirements at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/edit# All the best Lisa Seeman LinkedIn, Twitter ---- On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 14:40:10 +0300 Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com> wrote ---- > Excellent. That is my preferred approach but I wanted to follow > existing group practice. > > Thanks again. > Steve Lee > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > > > On 30 August 2018 at 11:44, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: > > Hi Steve, > > > > I think it would be best to: > > - Branch > > - Create the PR > > - Email the rendered version (with highlights) to the list here for review. > > > > I did that previously and it seemed to work well. > > > > Cheers, > > > > -Alastair > > > > On 30/08/2018, 11:23, "Steve Lee" <steve@opendirective.com> wrote: > > > > I'll certainly add the highlights as you suggest, but GitHub PR > > comments allow for discussion, which is another level or > > collaboration. > > > > If the usual workflow is for contributors to branch and commit that's > > fine with me :) I'll do that. > > Steve Lee > > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > > > > > > On 30 August 2018 at 11:18, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: > > > Hi Steve, > > > > > > That's what I suggested adding a class of 'highlight' to any element you edit. > > > > > > E.g: > > > <p class="highlight">Text... > > > > > > And in the head: > > > <style> .highlight { background-color: yellow; }</style> > > > > > > Then in the rendered (rawgit) version any change is highlighted. > > > > > > Obviously that isn't accessible for people who can't see it, but the github diff version is better for that scenario. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > -Alastair > > > > > > > > > On 30/08/2018, 10:44, "Steve Lee" <steve@opendirective.com> wrote: > > > > > > Looks like I still have commit access, but will make a Pull Request > > > (PR) anyway as a good workflow and in case there are any comments. > > > > > > However I am concerned a GitHub PR with embedded comments will not be > > > easily accessible for everyone here so will restrict to symbols > > > editorial changes as you suggest. > > > Steve Lee > > > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > > > > > > > > > On 30 August 2018 at 09:29, Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks Alastair, that's great. > > > > > > > > Steve Lee > > > > Sent from my mobile device Please excuse typing errors > > > > > > > > On Thu, 30 Aug 2018, 08:58 Alastair Campbell, <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi Steve, > > > >> > > > >> That would be great, the latest version is here: > > > >> https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/gap-analysis/index.html > > > >> > > > >> I think the only difference with the editors draft is that Appendix A has > > > >> been moved out of the doc. > > > >> > > > >> Making a branch from here: https://github.com/w3c/coga/ (e.g. stevelee-qa) > > > >> would be great. > > > >> > > > >> To make it easier for others to review, I previously added a class of > > > >> 'update' to any element I changed, and put a bit of CSS in the head to > > > >> highlight it with a yellow background. (That's removed before merging.) > > > >> > > > >> For QA/typos and adding missing sections that is a good process. For > > > >> things that are more than QA, e.g. moving or removing things, I suggest > > > >> posting the suggestion here first. > > > >> > > > >> Kind regards, > > > >> > > > >> -Alastair > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 29/08/2018, 13:16, "Steve Lee" <steve@opendirective.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> In reading the published Roadmap and gap analysis I spotted a few > > > >> type-os > > > >> > > > >> How do you want them submitted? > > > >> > > > >> My natural inclination is to provide a PR with changes to > > > >> https://github.com/w3c/coga/blob/master/gap-analysis/index.html > > > >> but I doubt that is the correct process, especially as the source is > > > >> not mention in the published doc. > > > >> > > > >> Plus I was reading the > > > >> https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/WD-coga-gap-analysis-20180607/ and not the > > > >> editors draft. > > > >> > > > >> How should more detailed comments be passed on - via this list? > > > >> > > > >> Thanks > > > >> > > > >> Steve Lee > > > >> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >