- From: Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 14:20:21 +0100
- To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
On 01/08/2011 01:03, Cameron McCormack wrote: > On 31/07/11 6:24 PM, Tavmjong Bah wrote: >> Can we also add an "annotation" div class? This would be used to keep >> notes, for example: >> >> <div class="annotation"> >> <p>Resolved to add 'fr' to radialGradient in SVG 2.0 at 2011-07-29 WG >> meeting to align with use by canvas.</p> >> </div> >> >> The display of annotations would be hidden or shown by style sheets. >> They would be hidden in public versions (and could be stripped in the >> final version if desired, although, they would be very useful for >> keeping a historical record of why things were done the way they are). > > It's an interesting idea, although I would in general try to keep > metadata in the spec source itself to a minimum to avoid it becoming out > of date. I'm not sure why you feel having the "rational" sections inline in the spec source would increase the likelihood of that information becoming out of date. To me it seems more likely that anyone editing the text will see the rational section and update it as necessary too if it's inline, rather than in a separate file or wiki page. > I have tended to (encouraged others to) note the ACTION or > ISSUE in commit messages when making changes to the spec, so that there > is a way of recording this kind of information. Do you think it would > better to include this description directly in the spec? Opinions from > others? Yes, I'd like to be able to have a separate annotated spec with rationals shown inline. The build system can just strip that stuff out of the official spec. (Didn't we discuss and agree to do this several times now? :) ) If the rational/background is especially verbose, then there's always the option to put it somewhere else and have the annotated version of the spec link to it, but in general I'd prefer that stuff inline. Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 13:18:52 UTC