- From: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 17:56:48 -0700
- To: Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: public-hme-editors@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAHD2rsgfcixF57CX6+BSLbvoc-RO_uesj02hco5wfrra+nMMNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Three of your PRs have outstanding actions/questions but are otherwise fine. Is ReSpec still broken? The spec at https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/ is growing further out of date. On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:00 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? >> >> 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>`. >> > > Proposed fix in > https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/395 > > 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. >> > > Proposed fix in > https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pull/396 > > 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 >> > > One of the editors need to propose texts for the V1 Editorial issues at > the minimum or move them to VNext: > https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/368 > https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/369 > https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/370 > > The editors need to approve/merge the pull requests listed at > > https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is% > 3Apr+milestone%3AV1Editorial > (or indicate what's wrong with them) > > V1NonBlocking issues need to be moved to VNext, unless there is a proposed > change that doesn't affect implementations and tests (and if that's the > case, we'll need the proposed change in a pull request): > https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/milestone/3 > > One of the editors need to provide input on: > https://github.com/w3c/encrypted-media/issues/390 > > Philippe >
Received on Thursday, 18 May 2017 00:57:41 UTC