- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 23:40:08 +1100
- To: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>
- Cc: "public-inbandtracks@w3.org" <public-inbandtracks@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Cyril Concolato > <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote: >> Le 09/10/2014 11:37, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit : >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Cyril Concolato >>> <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote: >>>> >>>> Le 08/10/2014 22:47, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The GitHub versions are not what counts. Read the header of the spec to >>>>> see what counts. >>>>> >>>> I'm lost then. What is the process ? Why are you merging pull requests in >>>> the W3C Github version? How do you apply them on the dev.w3.org ? >>>> >>> >>> GitHub is a means to develop the spec. It is not a means to publish >>> it. Only specs published at the W3C count. >> >> I don't think that's clear to everyone, especially when the conclusions of >> the bugs are: "I've merged the pull request". >>> >>> I have a script that >>> publishes the spec to the W3C code repository and run it to update the >>> spec infrequently. Until we get to FPWD (maybe through the HTML WG), >>> we will be running that way. >> >> So in practice the latest spec is on GitHub, not on W3C. > > The editor's draft is. > >> I'm fine with the process. It's just that the result is confusing. Bugs >> should either be closed by saying "I've merged the pull request and >> published it on the W3C web site" and your script ran at that time. >> Alternatively, the "latest editor's draft" link in the W3C hosted spec >> should point to GitHub. > > OK, I'm going to try and add that. Actually, until we get this to an FPWD state, we cannot add a second URL. Until then, the w3c one will be the only one listed. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 12:40:55 UTC