- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:12:08 -0400
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
Julian Reschke wrote: > James Graham wrote: >> ... >> This is now done; it is possible to generate the HTML5 spec with >> static inline status markers (pulled from the WHATWG annotation >> system) and ISSUE markers pulled from tracker (currently OPEN and >> RAISED issues; it should be no problem to add PENDING REVIEW if >> necessary). Some sample output is at [1]. My branch of anolis, and >> hence http://pimpmyspec.net, has gained the ability to add these >> annotations and pimpmyspec.net also gained the ability (at [2]) to >> generate a combined annotations/issues file of the type needed as >> input when adding issue markers to a spec. >> >> ISSUE/section associations are picked up from tracker by looking for >> strings in the description field of the form: >> >> HTML5-SPEC-SECTIONS [section1 section2 section3] >> >> i.e. a magic identifier followed by a square-bracket-enclosed, >> space-separated list of ids. >> >> I suggest that we add such status/issue markers to the W3C versions of >> the spec henceforth. This would seem to address many of the points >> made in favour of publishing the "warnings" draft in the recent poll >> without tripping over the substantial objections. >> ... > > James, thanks a lot for putting this together. Ian, thanks for > incorporating it. Manu, thanks for triggering the discussion. And, > Maciej thanks a *lot* for the work on actually getting the number of > open issues down. +1 We had previously decided to publish Ian's draft based in a large part on a poll entitled "Publish HTML 5 update with or without warnings?" and Manu withdrawing his draft. At the present time we have a single draft, which includes warnings. It differs in that the selection criteria is much clearer than what Manu originally proposes. From what I hear, plenty of people support this draft, but I desperately don't want to reopen the discussion, so I am asking if there is *anybody* who would prefer that we publish the editors draft as it was before this change was made. I realize that this is short notice, but I believe that there is a big win to be had if we publish the current version including warnings. > BR, Julian - Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 24 August 2009 13:12:55 UTC