- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:21:12 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
Hi Eric, I have slightly re-organized the top-level folders of the branch on github: - I renamed data-shapes-ldom into data-shapes-primer, to host a potential Primer document if the group decides to write one. That primer would cover all deliverables, e.g. including the potential compact syntax. - I added a folder data-shapes-core for the formal "core" specification. As a nice side effect, the temporary name "ldom" has disappeared from the folders. I suggest a similar generalization should be applied to the folder currently called shexc, e.g. renaming it to data-shapes-compact. Holger On 1/20/2015 20:49, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote: > Given some hope that we start editing LDOM and ShExC in the near > future, I'm thinking about how we want to organize our git repo. > > Anything we commit to a "gh-pages" branch shows up in w3c.github.io, > e.g. <https://w3c.github.io/indie-ui/indie-ui-events>. Also, if we > call our specs "index.html", we can address them by directory. I > propose a directory structure like this: > > data-shapes/data-shapes-ucr/index.html > data-shapes/data-shapes-ldom/index.html > data-shapes/data-shapes-shexc/index.html > > We currently have a branch called "master" with > data-shapes/shapes-ucr/spec.html > data-shapes/README.md > > README.md has 7 words in it so I'm not focusing too much on that. > shapes-ucr/spec.html is under active development which we'll need to > pause in order to type this: > > git checkout -b gh-pages > git push --set-upstream origin gh-pages > git branch -D master > git push origin :master > git mv shapes-ucr data-shapes-ucr > git mv data-shapes-ucr/spec.html data-shapes-ucr/index.html > > and select "gh-pages" as the default branch in > <https://github.com/w3c/data-shapes/settings> > > Simon, you're the principle culprit actively editing the UC&R. What's > a good time for you to commit and keep your hands off the keyboard for > a few mins (or do the changes above)? (I figure those changes are non- > controversial, but I may be proven wrong.) >
Received on Monday, 26 January 2015 00:24:42 UTC