- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 16:03:54 +0100
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, public-sdw-wg@w3.org
+1 On 20/05/2015 15:29, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > 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, > -- Phil Archer W3C Data Activity Lead http://www.w3.org/2013/data/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2015 15:04:04 UTC