- From: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 17:24:30 -0400
- To: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>
- Cc: public-hme-editors@w3.org
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