Re: [wbs] response to 'Call for Review: CSS Color 3 is W3C Proposed Recommendation'

Hi David,

Thanks for your review comments.

> It would be good to link to the editor's draft in the spec boilerplate.
Yes, it would. I will make that change when the Proposed Rec moves to 
Edited Rec.
>   
> (Interestingly, the spec is substantially newer than the editor's draft at
> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-color-3/  , so I'm not actually sure where the
> editor's draft is.)
This is an old, pre-bikeshed spec so the editors draft is in GitHub as 
Overview.src.html 
<https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/blob/master/css-color-3/Overview.src.html>
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/tree/master/css-color-3

Unlike bikeshed specs, editing the .src.html does not autogenerate the 
Editors Draft. It has to be done using the old preprocessor, then the 
many errors introduced by that old, unmaintained preprocessor fixed up 
by hand, then the result committed to GitHub. Fonts 3 is the same way. 
However Color 4 and Fonts 4 are both bikeshed specs.

However, that is just to explain why the current viewable editors draft 
has an old last modify date (GitHub says "two years ago" and, oddly, an 
even older date on the title page), not to argue that this should 
continue. I will update the build Editors Draft on GitHub so that the 
eventual Edited Recommendation links to the latest version.

>   A link to the editor's draft is often useful for
> understanding change history, since it usually leads to a version control
> system.
Yes, agreed. The history is at
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commits/master/css-color-3/Overview.src.html


>    It's also useful for finding newer errata that might not have been
> incorporated into the official errata page.
That shouldn't really happen, errata should go in the errata document 
for review before being folded into the editors draft.

-- 
Chris Lilley
@svgeesus
Technical Director @ W3C
W3C Strategy Team, Core Web Design
W3C Architecture & Technology Team, Core Web & Media