- From: Anthony Grasso <anthony.grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 11:04:09 +1000
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: public-fx@w3.org
Robin Berjon wrote: > Heya, > > On May 4, 2010, at 10:25 , Anthony Grasso wrote: >> I propose the following structure for the archive: >> >> - ROOT >> - proposals [folder for proposal documents] >> - tools [folder for any scripts and similar tools non-spec related] >> - modules [folder for the modules] >> - MODULE_NAME [folder that contains the HTML specification files] >> - test [folder for the tests relating to the module] >> - errata [folder for the errata documents] >> - resources [folder for any CSS, images or examples relating to the specification] > > I don't want to bikeshed (I don't personally care) but I'm bringing this up because it's a recent requirement for publication that you might not be aware of. For multi-file specifications (e.g. if you have images), the W3C webmaster now requires that publication requests be made with a pointer to a self-contained specification. With the above setup you'd have to copy files over to a specific directory for that. You can avoid that by using a module structure like this instead: > > MODULE_NAME > - spec > - resources (or however you wish to call it, no need for a convention) > - tests > - errata > > It might make your life easier at each pubreq — that's all. > I wish my email client had a "Likes this" button. Because I'd be pressing it now ;-) ...Anthony
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2010 01:04:50 UTC