- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:27:57 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
On 2013-04-08 15:02, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Adam Bergkvist > <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com> wrote: >> Regarding the github version; it's not a published document. The link I sent >> you uses a script on github to render a rather limited html preview of a >> file in our repo (note the http://htmlpreview.github.io/? prefix). For >> example, all links are broken. Perhaps I need to be more careful when >> posting such links in the future so that it's not mistaken for a published >> draft. > > FWIW, as a reviewer I would very much prefer to always look at the > latest version, whether you like to call that "published" or > "unpublished". E.g. I ensure http://dom.spec.whatwg.org/ is always the > latest by having it fetched from GitHub whenever I make a commit there > (using URL commit hook). That way reviewing becomes much simpler and > looking at integrated changes becomes much easier too. The document at [1] is latest version of the document and the one to review. We use the github repo to share work in progress branches and unfinished text between the several editors of our documents which makes the text there unsuited for review. /Adam [1] http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2013 05:28:21 UTC