Re: EME: issues in recent commits

On 4/13/2017 3:35 PM, David Dorwin wrote:
> Hi Philippe,
>
> I just fixed a typo in -respect.html and pushed that to master. I didn't
> update index.html because ReSpec is unhappy. Did you manually generate
> index.html? Is there any word on a fix for the problem?

respec is generating warning and not making links in some places. I 
don't believe I changed anything for that in the published version. I 
don't think those links were there in the first place however so nothing 
should be broken. I can look into figure why respec is complaining and 
see if we can fix some of those.

> While doing that, I found some issues in recent commits.
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/commit/1f112baec28a70b4c472902c57d9856fb552288b#diff-f72607e47a6f74e53dc90eab8ee094e2
> made the NOTE apply to only one branch of the step. If the previous
> markup was incorrect, the note should have been moved outside the `</dl>`.
 >
> 2. The last two commits changes macros, especially those related to
> queueing a task. There are a couple issues.
>
>   * The `queue-a-task` macro name was replaced with `queueing`. I think
>     this should have been left alone as it more clearly represents what
>     the macro will be converted to. It doesn't have to match the target
>     anchor name.
>   * Upper case 'Q' was replaced with 'q' in the macro names. The upper
>     case letter is intentional because it indicates that he text will be
>     capitalized. For one macro, we had both upper and lower case 'Q'.
>     Now both are lower case, which breaks some of the resulting text.
>     For example, step 10.10
>     of https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/#dom-mediakeysession-generaterequest.
 >
 > Let me know if you'd like me to file bugs for these or if you'll just
 > fix them.

Apologizes for misfixing those things. If you're willing to put the note 
in the place (ie after the <dl>) and fix the macros (without breaking 
the spec links), that would be nice.

> FYI, we still have some open "V1" issues. What is the plan for those?
> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/milestone/3
> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/milestone/4

Because of the controversy around the specification, I expect that 
generating a new version of the spec will be one of the last steps I'll 
worry about unfortunately. So, I suggest the first step is to make sure 
we have PRs for those issues. If the issues are editorials, the editors 
can easily put them in. If not, I can attempt to argue that it makes 
sense to have them because of implementations. At the end of the day, 
what we'll do on our side is look at a diff and see what changed. If 
anything problematic comes up, we can always ask.

Hope this makes sense,

Philippe

Received on Thursday, 13 April 2017 21:24:41 UTC