- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 16:29:06 +0200
- To: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
I realised that the document is not made for the Rec track. It's going to be a WG Note, so I think we can even be more relaxed about it. But still we need those issue-boxes explaining what is still to be done and what is unsure. --AZ Le 20/05/2015 16:15, Antoine Zimmermann a écrit : > All, > > > The draft for Usse Cases & Requirements has already a good structure. > For a FPWD, it does not need to look final in any way, can have plenty > of missing parts and pieces that are still controversial within the group. > > > HOWEVER, it must contain warnings that tell the reader what parts are > missing and what has not been agreed on yet, or where the group is still > unsure. The warnings normally take the form of "issues" that we mark in > the HTML with: > > <div class="issue"> > <p>Text of the issue goes here</p> > </div> > > and reSpec does the rest to make it look beautifully red. > For an example, take a look at this one: > > www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-dwbp-20150224/#h-issue1 > > See that it can also point to the issue tracker if we have an open issue > on the subject. > > > It seems to me that after we have added all the warnings and issues to > explain the status of the sections, we can immediately go to FPWD. > > > Nonetheless, we should still have two people (or more if volunteers show > up) reviewing the document to tell where the content is imperfect and > suggest places for issue boxes, to correct a few typos on the way, and > express their opinion on whether it is ready for FPWD. > > I definitely can't do this myself in the three coming weeks, I'm afraid. > > > Best, -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD - Institut Henri Fayol École des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel CS 62362 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2015 14:29:30 UTC