- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:10:47 +1100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>, Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHp8n2=HGoT7U6bde-Af7mZ0j55=0UHD55r+d00j6U6gLi=nAA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Travis Leithead < > Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com> wrote: > > I'll note that for a lot of other extension specs: MSE, EME, sourceset, > <picture>, at least; they appear to be stand-alone documents.**** > > I personally think that cloning HTML5.1 just to add one new behavior or > tag is wayyy too much overhead. Yes, it'll be easy to merge later, but it's > absolutely terrible for calling attention to the specific nature of the > extension proposal. > > > I don't think Silvia was proposing cloning HTML 5.1, neither in textual > terms nor even necessarily in git terms. She was just suggesting hosting on > GitHub, at least for extensions that aspire to be merged someday. > Yes, sorry, I wasn't very concrete. I would indeed recommend to make a separate spec, but if you want it merged into HTML5.1 at a later time, it would be much easier to have it on GitHub. Note that none of our current extension specs include all the rest of HTML. > Even ones that are created by branching from the html repository do not do > so. > Maybe except for the srcset spec at https://github.com/w3c/html/tree/w3c-srcset , which has tags that make is small to get to http://dev.w3.org/html5/srcset/ . That works for me, too, but it probably asking too much of editors. Regards, Silvia. > Regards, > Maciej > > > **** > > I find it ridiculously easy to use respec and whip together a document > that looks publish-ready without too much pain. At that point, I like to > host it at mercurial because the access control is easy (vs. dev.w3.org, > which requires public keys). I also like that mercurial is on a W3C server > so it looks more official-looking. But I suppose putting it up on github > works as well.**** > > My 2c—**** > -Travis**** > > *From:* Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 1:05 PM > *To:* Cameron Jones > *Cc:* public-html-admin@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Extension Specification Authoring & Publication**** > ** ** > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Cameron Jones <cmhjones@gmail.com> > wrote:**** > > ** ** > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer < > silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:**** > > (moving to the admin list) > > Hi Cameron, > > Since we are doing most of our editing work on GitHub, as one of the > editors I'd like to see it in GitHub in your private repository, preferably > in a way that we can merge it into the existing spec easily. > > HTH. > > Silvia.**** > > ** ** > > > Ok, how do i publish it for review? Is a link to the repository from the > existing proposal sufficient or should i generate and publish a build? > > Thanks, > Cameron Jones**** > > > > You can take inspiration from other extension specs: > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ExtensionSpecifications > > HTH. > > Cheers, > Silvia. > > >
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 10:11:37 UTC