W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > March 2017

Re: BP doc is ready for publication

From: Jeremy Tandy <jeremy.tandy@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:08:37 +0000
Message-ID: <CADtUq_3gPesoOvdP0=T5vZqUir0HtEfB4hKzy1-7YebN2UQHBg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Thank you François. That all makes sense. I've merged your PR too. Jeremy
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 at 17:31, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Jeremy,
>
> Le 28/03/2017 à 15:14, Jeremy Tandy a écrit :
> > Phil, François,
> >
> > the BP document is now ready for you to take it on for publication ...
>
> The document is on its way to being published tomorrow.
>
> >
> > We editors have done the following:
> [...]
> >   * W3C PubRules check [https://www.w3.org/pubrules/]: 2 errors reported
> >     (“Status of This Document” and “W3C Process boilerplate”); manual
> >     verification indicates that the necessary rules _are_ being followed
> …
>
> As said on the phone, this message probably means you entered the
> address of the Editor's Draft directly in the pubrules checker.
>
> The pubrules checker is dumb and merely checks the bytes it receives
> without letting ReSpec run first. To get practical results, you need:
>
> 1. to tell ReSpec that you want it to produce a WG Note:
> https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp?specStatus=WG-NOTE;shortName=sdw-bp
>
> 2. to give that URL to another tool called "spec generator":
>
> https://labs.w3.org/spec-generator/?type=respec&url=https://w3c.github.io/sdw/bp?specStatus=WG-NOTE;shortName=sdw-bp
>
> 3. to input that last URL within the PubRules checker, leading to the
> yummy:
>
> https://www.w3.org/pubrules/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.w3.org%2Fspec-generator%2F%3Ftype%3Drespec%26url%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fsdw%2Fbp%3FspecStatus%3DWG-NOTE%3BshortName%3Dsdw-bp&profile=WG-NOTE&validation=simple-validation&noRecTrack=true&informativeOnly=true&echidnaReady=false&patentPolicy=pp2004
>
> You'll note that Pubrules still reports errors. They are false positives
> (either due to the spec being a joint W3C/OGC spec or to known bugs in
> the PubRules checker), except the following ones which are real errors:
>
> - "The viewport meta tag is required", I prepared a PR to fix that:
>   https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/647
> - "Element “sameas” not allowed as child of element “span” in this
> context": that seems to be a bug in ReSpec which unescapes a "&lt;" when
> it generates the title of the example on the <sameas> service. I fixed
> that manually in the document to be published and filed an issue against
> ReSpec:
>   https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/1173
>
> Thanks,
> Francois.
>
Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2017 18:09:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 29 March 2017 18:09:21 UTC