- From: Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:25:41 +0000
- To: Alfredo Serafini <seralf@gmail.com>
- CC: CSV on the Web Working Group <public-csv-wg@w3.org>
On 19/02/14 09:12, Alfredo Serafini wrote: > Hi Andy, if you plan to mantain some source/documentation on github, > that issue management it's really good, widely used, and permits also > the usage of the @username reference, which may be used for discussing > specific technical elements inline, as a sort of inline topic for every > issue. > > Alfredo Alfredo, Yes, for the documents on github, that's the way I presume we're doing it and this was confirmed in the call. It works well for matters about a document where the editor can close the issue when done. But what about issues that are not specific to a document (at the moment)? In other WG, are proposed, refined before being accepted by the WG as "issues" and it is WG resolutions that close that kind of issue. That's a different a different kind of issue. Chairs? Andy > > > 2014-02-19 10:00 GMT+01:00 Andy Seaborne <andy@apache.org > <mailto:andy@apache.org>>: > > On 05/02/14 13:17, CSV on the Web Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > ISSUE-1: There is no machine-readable mechanism available to > describe how the set of files are related > > http://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/__track/issues/1 > <http://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/track/issues/1> > > Raised by: > On product: > > > I was going to try to extract some points from recent email > discussions and convert into possible issues. > > How are we gathering issues? Are we using that mechanism just yet? > > Which tracker? W3C or github? > > (The W3C one is linked from the home page. ISSUE-1 there is closed.) > > Andy > > >
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 09:26:10 UTC