W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-epub3@w3.org > September 2018

Re: EPUB 3.2 Editorial Assignments

From: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 19:22:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CADxXqOx8OmC+4nSoz6ET7h4xN=6Y2wxKZ1SAdx8Q6mdD+UBXyQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Briano <jamesbriano@gmail.com>
Cc: John Costa <jbcosta@repubit.com>, W3C EPUB3 Community Group <public-epub3@w3.org>, rachel.comerford@macmillan.com
If the links work, they are fine. The strings come from a spec ref database
which has evolved over the years, and does not have editorial consistency
as a core value :)

Dave

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 6:57 PM James Briano <jamesbriano@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have questions about the capitalization and hyphen conventions in C.1
> Normative references
> <https://w3c.github.io/publ-epub-revision/epub32/spec/epub-contentdocs.html#normative-references> and
> C.2 Informative references
> <https://w3c.github.io/publ-epub-revision/epub32/spec/epub-contentdocs.html#informative-references>
>
> Some non-acronyms and initialisms are capitalized like this:* [ContentDocs301]
> *and *[CSS-Fonts-3] *and *[W3CProcess]*
> Should the following changes occur:
> [MATHML3] to [MathML3]
> [PRONUNCIATION-LEXICON] to [Pronunciation-Lexicon]
> [RDFA-CORE] to [RDFa-Core]
> [WEBIDL] to [Web-IDL] (hyphen added as well, see below)
> [XML-NAMES] to [XML-Names]
>
> Some spaces are represented by a hyphen like this:* [DOM-Level-2-Style]* and
> in a few examples above.
> Should the following changes occur:
> [CSSSnapshot] to [CSS-Snapshot]
> [W3CProcess] to [W3C-Process]
> [ContentDocs301] to [Content-Docs-301]
> [AttributeExtensions] to [Attribute-Extensions]
> [EPUB32Changes] to [EPUB32-Changes]
> [EPUB3Overview] to [EPUB3-Overview]
> [EPUBAccessibility] to [EPUB-Accessibility]
> [WebWorkers] to [Web-Workers]
>
> ------------------
>
> If these are correct the way they are, just let me know--there's no need
> explaining *why* as I know you all are short on time and I'll figure it
> out myself.
>
> Respectfully,
> James Briano
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:27 AM John B. Costa <jbcosta@repubit.com> wrote:
>
>> Rachel:  3.2 CHANGES Review
>>
>> 6.0 – 6.9 Reviewed,  Links checked,  no errors or typos.
>> I submitted one recommendation to GitHub for 6.5
>> <https://w3c.github.io/publ-epub-revision/epub32/spec/epub-changes.html#structural-semantics>
>>   It looks like it was just inserted…. Thanks.
>>
>> Let me know if there is anything else I can assist with.
>>
>>
>> *John B. Costa  *CEO - RePubIT, LLC | Chair: IEEE ADB Committee
>> Sanford FL 32771 USA   +1 321 262-3626
>> jbcosta@repubit.com  |  www.linkedin.com/in/johnbcosta1
>>
>> *Natural Talents Applied Well*
>>
>>
>> From: Rachel Comerford <rachel.comerford@macmillan.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 5:10 PM
>> To: John Costa <jbcosta@repubit.com>
>> Cc: W3C EPUB 3 Community Group <public-epub3@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: EPUB 3.2 Editorial Assignments
>>
>> Thanks John!
>>
>> Rachel Comerford | Senior Director of Content Standards and Accessibility
>> | T 212.576.9433
>>
>> *Macmillan Learning*
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:31 PM, John B. Costa <jbcosta@repubit.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rachel:
>>>
>>> EPUB3.2 Changes Tab:
>>>
>>>    - 5.0-5.3 look good.  No typo’s, grammatical, or language issues.
>>>    Links all resolve to the correct docs or location within 3.2.
>>>    - I am working on 6.0-6.9 this evening.  Should be finished by
>>>    tomorrow morning EDT.
>>>
>>>
>>> *John B. Costa  *CEO - RePubIT, LLC | Chair: IEEE ADB Committee
>>> Sanford FL 32771 USA   +1 321 262-3626
>>> jbcosta@repubit.com  |  www.linkedin.com/in/johnbcosta1
>>>
>>> *Natural Talents Applied Well*
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Rachel Comerford <rachel.comerford@macmillan.com>
>>> Date: Thursday, July 26, 2018 at 12:51 PM
>>> To: W3C EPUB 3 Community Group <public-epub3@w3.org>
>>> Subject: EPUB 3.2 Editorial Assignments
>>> Resent-From: <public-epub3@w3.org>
>>> Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 16:52:26 +0000
>>>
>>> In order to increase the likelihood that our specs have received
>>> sufficient review, we are reviving an editorial review practice initiated
>>> with 3.1. In this google spreadsheet
>>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TDcBudM9UTm41PxFAX3UqGlvcqNertJpdYNZ0WWq758/edit#gid=483122108>
>>> is a list of assignees and the sections we would like them to review. We
>>> have to keep the sections reasonable. Please review your section by end of
>>> day September 7th. If you are unable to review your section, please notify
>>> me immediately so I can reassign your sections.
>>>
>>>
>>> To perform your review, please read the listed sections carefully,
>>> looking for any issues, such as clarity in language and consistency. You do
>>> not have to be a subject matter expert in the area that you are reviewing.
>>> If you find any problems, please report them using github, or use the
>>> mailing list if that would be more appropriate. Once you have completed
>>> your review, whether you have found errors or not, please email me directly
>>> so I can note the section has been covered. When reviewing a section, you
>>> may stop when a new section not on your list starts.
>>>
>>> Here again is a link to the assignments. I will also be emailing
>>> participants separately to notify them of assignments:
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TDcBudM9UTm41PxFAX3UqGlvcqNertJpdYNZ0WWq758/edit#gid=483122108
>>>
>>> If you do not have an assignment and would like to contribute, please
>>> let me know!!
>>> Rachel and Dave
>>>
>>> Rachel Comerford | Senior Director of Content Standards and
>>> Accessibility | T 212.576.9433
>>>
>>> *Macmillan Learning*
>>>
>>
>>
Received on Friday, 14 September 2018 23:23:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:44:31 UTC