Re: [webvtt] Spec editing

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 09:34:29 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:48 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose (and implement) some changes in the spec editing
>>> department for WebVTT. Feedback appreciated.
>>>
>>> * Convert to Bikeshed. Both for personal preference and I think it's
>>> better
>>> at handling cross-spec xrefs, and it doesn't suffer from FOUC when
>>> loading
>>> the spec.
>>
>>
>> Sure!
>>
>>
>>> * Stop using https://github.com/foolip/webvtt-webhook - I don't know what
>>> we
>>> should do instead but I don't particularly fancy maintaining a custom
>>> webhook for WebVTT. Anne van Kesteren has offered to maintain a webhook
>>> if
>>> we were to move the spec to WHATWG. Personally I wouldn't mind that, but
>>> I
>>> don't have strong opinions about where the spec should live.
>>
>>
>> Don't forget that there are two groups involved with the publication
>> of WebVTT: the CG and the Timed Text WG.
>
>
> Right.
>
>> WebVTT was never published through WHATWG, but always through W3C CVS
>> at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/webvtt/ .
>
>
> It was originally part of the HTML spec, published through WHATWG and edited
> by Hixie, before you took over editing.
>
> https://github.com/whatwg/html/commit/f4751b825eb8d9c62a558fe4632912141d760a1d


Yeah, I meant since it was an independent spec.


>> By publishing the editors draft to http://dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/ ,
>> we didn't need to have a separate W3C editors draft from the WHATWG
>> one.
>
>
> Why would there be a need to have two editors' drafts?

There wouldn't.

I am not sure how to handle the flow between the WHATWG github repo,
the current github repo, the W3C CVS and the Echidna publishing
pipeline.


>> Also, the standards docs which go to http://www.w3.org/TR/webvtt1/ are
>> more easily published through Echidna from CVS.
>>
>> Having said this - if you have a better way of publishing to /TR/ ,
>> that would be very welcome.
>
>
> OK. Mike Smith says Echidna is the best way to publish stuff on TR/, so I
> take his word for it. :-)
>
>>> * Move from bugzilla to GitHub issues. It seems the barrier to entry is
>>> lowered by discussing issues in GitHub.
>>
>>
>> Depends on whose barrier we're talking about. The Web world would more
>> easily participate, yes. The TTWG probably not.
>
>
> What is the barrier for the TTWG? When discussing barrier to entry, what is
> most relevant in my opinion is the barrier for new contributors.

It's either a matter of signing up to the W3C bug tracker of signing
up to Github.
Many of the TTWG members don't have the latter, which is what I was
referring to.
If we do both as you suggested below, that solves that problem anyway.


>> In the past we avoided having to run both. I personally don't mind
>> moving to GitHub issues (I prefer that bug tracker, too), but somebody
>> has to move all the issues. :-(
>
>
> We don't necessarily need to move the issues. We can keep the old issues in
> bugzilla and file new ones on GitHub. This seems to work relatively well for
> the HTML spec. But if people would prefer to have the issues moved, I can
> take care of that.

We might end up with some duplication by running both, but that's probably ok.

Cheers,
Silvia.

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 09:38:14 UTC