Re: New draft…

29.01.2015, 14:31, "David Singer" <>:
> Hm
> <>
> a diff from the December version looks like we bled all over it.  what did I get wrong?  I was hoping to see a diff of what has changed since I last reviewed…

It looks like you are comparing it to a draft of chapter 7 from 2013. The Process document is indeed very different...

Looking at the diff for the Editor's draft and the currently operative Process (August 2014) is better: <>

And if you reviewed the September "AC Review" draft, the difference is a bit smaller still: <>

On the other hand, cleaning the markup to make rfc2119 terms consistent did introduce lots of spots of red and green. Although hopefully there are no real changes to the text, that just shows up in the diffs because I don't know a way to ignore a specific kind of change…

I did change the end of line characters and push a new draft today, by the way.


>>  On Jan 29, 2015, at 0:03 , wrote:
>>  Hi folks,
>>  I pushed a new draft. This is likely to be the draft the AB reviews, since there are no more meetings of the TF before the AB face to face. As always, it is at with the detailed changelogs at
>>  Those are likely to be less helpful than normal, since I made a lot of more or less invisible changes to the markup. There are really only minor editorial corrections bewteen this and the last draft.
>>  I didn't include a proposed change to split out the requirements for changing an acknowledge submission in a section on their own, but I will request that gets resolved. I believe it is purely editorial in any event.
>>  Cheers
>>  Chaals
>>  --
>>  Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
>> - - - Find more at
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex - - - Find more at

Received on Thursday, 29 January 2015 15:32:31 UTC