Re: Submitting corrections to the road map

Oops

I see that my editor (VS code) was set up to strip trailing whitespace
(blanks) so extra changes appear in the file diffs (differences).

I'd suggest we used an .editorconfig file to make sure all our editors are
set up the same way (and perhaps at .gitattributes for end of line
handling) but as we are using Google docs I guess fewer people will make
PRs? Still it would do no harm.


Steve Lee
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

On 31 August 2018 at 11:16, Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com> wrote:

> > we are proofreading the latest version at https://docs.google.com/docume
> nt/d/1aNl2uIkNlbch1QXoBHY675DC9vnOuoKFq20arP1q3Oo/edit#
> > can you add it to that?
>
> Certainly
>
> Unless you are OK for me to make the changes directly to the Google doc
> I'd rather the changes were reviewed even though they are very minor.
>
> They are here - https://github.com/w3c/coga/pull/82/files
>
> If the Doc contents will eventually be merged into the doc then I'll close
> the PR.
>
> Steve Lee
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
> On 30 August 2018 at 13:39, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
>
>> we are proofreading the latest version at https://docs.google.com/docume
>> nt/d/1aNl2uIkNlbch1QXoBHY675DC9vnOuoKFq20arP1q3Oo/edit#
>>
>> can you add it to that?
>>
>> Alos please look at the design requirements at
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WcfVALVq8PS9CLXUuAfV9
>> Op0wXvI2yJYedj5jO23GTk/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
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>