W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > February 2020

Re: Thoughts on editorial workflow that's easier to use

From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 13:49:21 +0000
To: r12a <ishida@w3.org>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Cc: Joshue O Connor <joconnor@w3.org>, Roy Ran <ran@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Message-ID: <23b6e6c9-551b-d39b-14c4-73d6fe276829@w3.org>
Thank for the clarifications Richard

BTW what is the significance of the colour Bars in your document?

On 04/02/2020 12:36, r12a wrote:
> You don't *need* to use markdown - inline HTML works fine in the GH 
> issue.  (It may not show in the GH comment itself any styling in your 
> target document that is produced using class names/ids and a style 
> sheet. However, that will appear in the doc itself.)

Good point and I see your example doesn't use anything other than what 
can be achieved using the WYSWIG editor toolbar (eg links)

> Fwiw, the i18n setup currently *requires* html markup for lists in the 
> GH issue, because i haven't yet finished the markdown-to-html converter. 
> GH displays the list as expected in the comment field.

I read recently that Remarkable is a particularly good converter

> A quick test seems to indicate that you can also use HTML table markup 
> in GH issue comments, if that helps. GH displays the markup as you'd 
> expect.

AHA, of course, HTML is valid in Markdown. The idea is that WYSIWIG 
table editing  would be more suitable for the taskforce. However even 
those have problems! May best to avoid tables except for the final 
editorial PR / commit

> Note, btw, that my intention is not to put the dynamic document on the 
> TR space.  I'll simply generate a flat file, per the usual respec way, 
> and publish that using Echidna.

I rather assumed that! :)

> hope that helps,

Definitely, thank you
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2020 13:49:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:05 UTC