Re: ARIA Editor's Drafts and gh-pages branch on GitHub

Merged.

I am suggesting that we do a graphics api mapping module before we merge
the references into SVG-AAM.

We should do the FPWD

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger



From:	Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
To:	Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, SVG-A11y TF
            <public-svg-a11y@w3.org>
Cc:	Douglas Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date:	11/04/2015 10:43 AM
Subject:	Re: ARIA Editor's Drafts and gh-pages branch on GitHub



Thanks Rich,

I made the relevant changes to use the rawGit URL as the Editor's Draft for
SVG-AAM.  If you could merge the pull request here, that will take care of
the latest Editor's Draft clearly identifying itself as such, so it does
not confuse people if I distribute that link:

https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/103

As you said, not much we can do about the out-of-date document on the
w3c.github.io domain until we re-publish, hopefully soon.

Are you suggesting that we should not publish the FPWD of the aria-graphics
module until we have an Accessibility API Mapping section for it?  Or that
we would create an additional spec with the mappings for the new roles?

Amelia


On 4 November 2015 at 09:27, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
wrote:
  Amelia,

  Yes, we have been using the rawgit pages to promote the ARIA 1.1 drafts.
  We have been using rawgit for everything.

  Github.io are only copied occassionally and are always behind. Michael
  copies these later. They all need to be updated.

  This has been working for quite some time. Why are you trying to change
  this now?

  When we publish formal TR drafts all the links are updated. We start with
  ARIA 1.1, then we go with Core AAM, then SVG-AAM, etc.

  We need to create a Graphics ARIA module and do an AAM for it. We can
  reference the graphics AAM from our SVG AAM spec. We should do this for
  December/January.

  For November we should just refresh the SVG-AAM.

  I agree we need to update the RAWGit URL for the master branch.

  Rich


  Rich Schwerdtfeger

  Inactive hide details for Amelia Bellamy-Royds ---11/03/2015 05:13:38
  PM---Hi Rich et al., The SVG-AAM spec references the GitHAmelia
  Bellamy-Royds ---11/03/2015 05:13:38 PM---Hi Rich et al., The SVG-AAM
  spec references the GitHub pages URL as the "Editor's Draft"

  From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
  To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Douglas Schepers <
  schepers@w3.org>, SVG-A11y TF <public-svg-a11y@w3.org>
  Date: 11/03/2015 05:13 PM
  Subject: ARIA Editor's Drafts and gh-pages branch on GitHub




  Hi Rich et al.,

  The SVG-AAM spec references the GitHub pages URL as the "Editor's Draft"
  version of the specs.  However, the gh-pages branch version of SVG-AAM
  has not been updated in 8 months.  The aria-graphics module does not even
  exist in that branch.  Other files on gh-pages have been updated more
  recently, but there doesn't seem to be any sort of coordinated
  synchronization.   I'm not sure what needs to be done to update a given
  file.  Maybe some editors are just pushing their changes to gh-pages and
  master at the same time.

  The main ARIA 1.1 specs now use the RawGit URL (to the master branch) as
  the official Editor's Draft.  I do not know why the decision was made to
  do that instead of using gh-pages, but if gh-pages is not going to be
  updated, then we need to do the same.  It somewhat defeats the purpose of
  having a publicly accessible Editor's Draft, if it is completely disjoint
  from the master files used by the editors.

  I would like to bring up the SVG-AAM as an agenda item for the main SVG
  working group, but I would prefer to have a URL to a document that
  clearly identifies itself as the Editor's Draft being discussed!

  The fastest fix would be to update the SVG-AAM file to include the RawGit
  URL of the master branch.  We also need to change it so that it clearly
  identifies itself as an Editor's Draft, not a published Working Draft.
  However, you may want to discuss this with the main ARIA team, to decide
  what to do with all the out-of-date files that were published via
  gh-pages.  These are still accessible on the web, and would appear to a
  visitor to be the latest Editor's drafts.

  Best,
  Amelia