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

Agree with @tobie regarding 1. There is a gross "trial by fire" culture wrt editing specifications around here that we need to root out. This will take time tho. I've had people complain at me that new contributors to the WICG don't know how to edit specs - like it's some magical thing that they should know how to do or that they should know all the magical binding behavior in WebIDL, etc. 

Re: 3 - so much yes. But we need to make a decision there. Either gh-pages is the source of truth or TR is... and if TR is, then Echidna and Specrebus have got to get **a lot** more user friendly. It's not that those folks working on those have not done a great job - but like @tobie, it's just too inside baseball and still way too hard to use. I tried to fix that by writing the wiki pages that describe the process for using some of those... but it's still super confusing to auto-publish.

Re: 4... we had a false start at this once: https://github.com/specthewebforward  ... even bought the domain (specthewebforward.org)... I think I let it lapse tho. 




-- 
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-250068707