W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > December 2020

[csswg-drafts] [css-contain-1] Pubrules issues with the 2020 Rec text (#5807)

From: Chris Lilley via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:53:50 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issues.opened-770948594-1608303227-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
svgeesus has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [css-contain-1] Pubrules issues with the 2020 Rec text ==
@frivoal  @deniak @plehegar 

The [checker complains](https://www.w3.org/pubrules/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2020%2FREC-css-contain-1-20201222%2F&profile=REC&validation=simple-validation&noRecTrack=false&informativeOnly=false&echidnaReady=false&patentPolicy=pp2020) as follows:

```
Errata paragraph not found.
```
The checker is correct here. All W3C Recommendations must have an errata link, which is a blank document when first published. I can make one, so this is an easy fix, although @tabatkins the CSS WG Rec boilerplate should be corrected to include this paragraph so it doesn't have to be added manually to the generated output each time.

```
This document doesn't contain substantive changes, paragraph 
<p class="correction">Proposed corrections are marked in the document.</p> should be removed.

Modifications in W3C Recommendation are divided into "new features" and "changes". 
Recommendations with modifications must include the following paragraphs depending 
on the changes.

For substantive changes, there should be a paragraph with class="correction":

    Proposed corrections are marked in the document.

<p class="correction">Proposed corrections are marked in the document.</p>

For new features, there should be a paragraph with class="addition":

    Proposed additions are marked in the document.

<p class="addition">Proposed additions are marked in the document.</p>
```

I suspect the checker is misled by not finding the exact paragraph "This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation. It includes proposed corrections" which is why it asks for the separate paragraph to be removed.

I think the checker is wrong, because [the process document](https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#candidate-correction) uses the term **candidate corrections**, as does the 2020 Rec text for Contain 1, while the checker seems to want **proposed corrections**. Thus, I believe the checker is wrong and should be updated to match the term used in the Process Document.

```
Cannot find the paragraph introducing document type and publisher in Status of This Document.
W3C Recommendation must include one of the four paragraphs below in the
 "Status Of This Document" depending on the type of Recommendations:

    This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation.

Recommendation with proposed changes:

    This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation. It includes 
    proposed corrections

Recommendation with new features:

    This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation. It includes 
   proposed addition, introducing new features since the Previous Recommendation.

Recommendation with proposed changes and new features:

    This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation. It includes 
    proposed changes, introducing substantive changes and new features since the 
    Previous Recommendation.

Include one of these source codes:
<p>This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation.</p>
<p>This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation. This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation. It includes <a href="https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#proposed-correction">proposed corrections</a>.</p>
<p>This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation. This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation. It includes <a href="https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#proposed-addition">proposed addition</a>, introducing new features since the Previous Recommendation.</p>
<p>This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation. This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation. It includes <a href="https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#proposed-changes">proposed changes</a>, introducing substantive changes and new features since the Previous Recommendation.</p>
```

Besides the insistence on the term **proposed corrections** as noted above, the checker wants the "This document was published " paragraph to also have the corrections note.

That is an easy fix to do, but rather buries the lede, and personally I prefer the way @frivoal did it with a separate paragraph that is styled the same as the corrections themselves.

I'm fairly sure that the precise form of wording that the checker asks for is not mandated by the Process Document, particularly since it contains grammatical errors both in the explanation and the checker-mandated paragraphs. These should be corrected, for example


>   This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation. It includes 
    proposed addition**s**, introducing new features since the Previous Recommendation.

or, even better

>   This document was published by the @@ Working Group as a Recommendation. It includes 
     **candidate** addition**s**, introducing new features since the Previous Recommendation.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5807 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 18 December 2020 14:53:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:24 UTC