Re: [w3ctag/spec-reviews] A spec style/structure checklist? (#136)

Let me repeat the same suggestions I made during the TPAC session on spec publishing:

1. We need a single point of entry for all things related to spec editing. From picking a tool to editing specs, to learning about RFC2119, to understanding process, pubrules, WebIDL, automated publishing, GitHub, etc. that is designed from the perspective of the editor _and not from the perspective of whoever is maintaining these different tools_. Right now, I'm supposed to know the difference between Echidna, Specrebus, and Pubrules. I've been around for years now and I'm still utterly confused.
1. Using [GitHub Pages](https://pages.github.com/) for this is ideal: the format uses markdown and Jekyll, two tools GitHub users have become intimately acquainted with, and contributing is a mere pull-request away. This is what we've done for Test the Web Forward, and three years later, it's still the go to place for learning about W3C testing.
1. You want to actively prune previous scattered content and either integrate it in this new system or remove it altogether: there must be one source of truth that everyone contributes too, not multiple as is currently the case.
1. This resource must belong to the community and W3C must only help make it happen. It shouldn't own it.
1. It might be a good idea to do a tiny bit of branding so the resource stands out.


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/136#issuecomment-249956482