- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 20:46:57 -0400
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- CC: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
James Graham wrote: > Quoting James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>: > >> Jonas Sicking wrote: >>>> A copy of the spec with the WHATWG annotations in is at [1] (that >>>> URL is not >>>> expected to be long-lasting). Note how this document makes the relative >>>> maturity of the <iframe> ("working draft") and <video> ("last call for >>>> comments") sections clear. I understand that some people will think >>>> that >>>> reusing W3C language is inappropriate; that can be changed. Please >>>> bear in >>>> mind that this document may contain errors since my spec-processing >>>> pipeline >>>> is immature; indeed I spotted some encoding issues already. >>> >>> Wow, this is great! I'd say I'd even prefer even more attention to the >>> status annotations, i.e. give them a border or something else to make >>> them stand out. >> >> OK I will experiment with making the markers more obvious. >> >> Another idea to throw into the ring is that it would be possible to add >> information to the annotations file about whether a section has an >> associated tracker issue. That would allow a link to the issue to be >> automatically inserted into the status marker along with, possibly, >> some explanatory text about the fact that the issue must be resolved >> before the next spec phase transition. Obviously some UI to maintain >> the list of issues in the annotations file would be needed but that is >> a solvable problem. > > I now have a version of the spec with links to open ISSUEs [1]. See [2] > for an example of a section where it applies. The issues are added using > an extra metadata file that contains a map between each issue and one or > more sections in the spec. The file I have created so far is at [3]; it > contains mappings for open issues which map well on to specific sections > of the spec (it is hard to see how to associate ISSUE-59 with the spec > since it is about the language reference; ISSUE-41 doesn't map on to a > particular section of the spec except maybe microdata). I also just > noticed that I missed ISSUE-55; that will be fixed. However this list is > not supposed to be definitive it is just a quickly-knocked-together > sample to demonstrate the approach. In particular raised issues are not > covered at all. Also the use of class="XXX" and the resulting appearance > is a result of doing the simplest thing that could possibly work rather > than some commitment to having that exact appearance for the markers. > > Note that I have not applied any date cut-off to the issues given > markers; this is deliberate since the intent is to provide information > about all the things that must be fixed before the next spec status > transition not to single out "controversial" areas of the spec. > > At this point it would be useful to get feedback. Is this something that > people believe is worth pursuing? How should the issue to section map be > maintained? Is there some style that would be better for the > status/issue markers? 1) I think this looks great! 2) Any chance you can include the short name (e.g. "table-summary") either inline or as a title? 3) I would suggest section 3.2.1 for issue 41. (key being the second sentence of the second paragraph). > (For the curious; this works by extending the annotation file format > used by WHATWG by adding an extra status attribute on the root element > indicating the status of the draft as a whole, and adding <issue name="" > url=""/> elements to each <entry> with one more associated issues. I > have a little bit of code that takes the file in [3] and mixes the > information into a copy of the WHATWG annotation file. The resulting > annotation file is then used with an anolis module to produce the actual > specification. My anolis repository is at [4]; once I have cleaned up > the code a bit I will talk to gsnedders about pushing this back to the > main repository. The code to process the issue_markers file is at [5]. I > also plan to add UI for the annotations feature to pimpmyspec.net.). > > [1] http://hoppipolla.co.uk/410/spec-full.html > [2] http://hoppipolla.co.uk/410/spec-full.html#video > [3] http://hoppipolla.co.uk/410/issue_markers > [4] http://hg.hoppipolla.co.uk/anolis/ > [5] http://hg.hoppipolla.co.uk/w3c_issues - Sam Ruby
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 00:47:42 UTC