Re: EME: issues in recent commits

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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.


The tip of tree is broken due to the ReSpec issues. For example, there are
many identifiers missing from the Examples section
<https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/#examples>. This is the same issue
that required manually fixing the PR version. We really need to find a
solution to this.

>
>
> While doing that, I found some issues in recent commits.
>>
>> 1.
>> https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/commit/1f112baec28a70
>> b4c472902c57d9856fb552288b#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-g
>> eneraterequest.
>>
> >
> > 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
>