Re: Proposal for an errata management

> On 22 Nov 2015, at 17:00, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for exploring this.
> 
> Is there any risk of API quotas being exceeded?
> 
I do not think so. I do not see the community looking at the report several hundreds of times a minute or raising several thousands of errata…:-)

> Perhaps we could consider the Github area a kind of "errata drafting" or staging area, with potentially more official W3C hosted version at W3C proper. That would also allow a larger (e.g. community) group to maintain the github version...
> 
Yeah well… what this ends up with is that I (or anybody taking over from me) has to maintain that, becoming therefore a bottleneck. That is why earlier working groups (RDFa or RDF) used a wiki page which, after all, worked out well, offloading the former staff contact. However, we never used the wiki (except maybe at the beginning); instead, all our actions were on github. So, consistency suggests to do it that way:-)

Ivan

> Dan
> 
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015, 16:13 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> I played with Javascript and the Github API the past few days, and I have a proposal improving what I originally set up.
> 
> There is a mock_up file (that I used for the testing) at:
> 
> http://w3c.github.io/csvw/errata/mock_up <http://w3c.github.io/csvw/errata/mock_up>
> 
> The important point is:
> 
> - The HTML file runs a script that retrieves issues with a specific label ('Errata') from a github repo (I used my old development repo which is fairly dormant right now in that test mock_up file)
> - The errata themselves are displayed among sections based on a specific label assigned to that section. The same erratum can appear several times if it is labelled accordingly. Finally, if an erratum does not use any of those section specific labels, it is displayed in a separate section
> - Each erratum is displayed with some of its important characteristics, including other possible labels. There is also a possibility to add a comment to the discussion (if any) starting with the word 'Summary:', which is then displayed separately. This may be a good practice when raising an erratum is followed by some discussions
> 
> The file above shows what it does; the file below
> 
> http://w3c.github.io/csvw/errata/errata <http://w3c.github.io/csvw/errata/errata>
> 
> shows how this would translate to our case, with a description of the process.
> 
> That means that report is done automatically, the average handling of an erratum is entirely on the issue list and nowhere else. Keeping the report on github also allows for an easier change on the text/workflow, etc, so it may be worth keeping there (instead of hosting the report on W3C).
> 
> One thought that I did not implement: we do have a number of issues that we postponed for a possible future release. We could label these as errata and add a separate section in the report for 'postponed issues'. Although these are, technically, not errata, but it would be still o.k. in the W3C terminology (W3C errata often include future improvement things.). But we may decide to keep those apart.
> 
> WDYT? Should I proceed and use the errata report page as above as the 'official' one?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
>> On 18 Nov 2015, at 14:47, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Actually… I may have found some ways of including the issues automatically into the errata page. It will require some javascripting, but I do not mind playing with this. This means that the content of the errata page will be filled automatically. I would still keep that page on github, if anybody wants to make some change at some point later…
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 18 Nov 2015, at 14:23, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> … while I was at it, I have made the necessary changes in the document config for the REC, with the provisional date of the 17th of December.
>>> 
>>> Additionally, I have set up an errata page. Although it has a W3C URI
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/errata.html <http://www.w3.org/2013/csvw/errata.html>
>>> 
>>> it redirects to
>>> 
>>> http://w3c.github.io/csvw/errata/ <http://w3c.github.io/csvw/errata/>
>>> 
>>> This is just a proposal on how we can proceed with errata; because we always used GitHub, it seemed logical to use github for that purpose, too.
>>> 
>>> It is a bit of a pain that the accepted errors have to be recorded on the errata page manually, although it may help in separating the real errata from the fake ones. Nevertheless… if somebody knows some good javascript tricks to get the data directly from github on the fly rather than doing it manually, that would be better. I believe there is Github API, so it may not be impossible. I will have a look, but, in the meantime, what is there may be fine.
>>> 
>>> If you prefer another approach, let us discuss it now, while we still have time…
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> 
>>> Ivan
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>>> Digital Publishing Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Digital Publishing Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704