- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 14:50:48 +0100
- To: public-xg-lld <public-xg-lld@w3.org>
Ooops I might have been too fast being happy. It seems that the toplevel structure has gone: is this because the transclusion just takes the source on the original pages, without adapting the header levels? Trying to make my question clearer: If an original page has as structure: 1. Use Cases 1.1 Use Case X then id we transcluse that page in to 1. Clusters 1.1 Cluster 1 [Transclusion here] 1.2 Cluster 2. Then the result is 1. Clusters 1.1 Cluster 1 2. Use Cases 2.1 Use Case X 2.2 Cluster 2. ? If yes, then this argues for each "section" of [1] (use cases, recommendations, etc) we should prepare a specific version of itself, tailored for inclusion in the final report. That may not be a huge problem, if we agree for example that the Use case section, for instance, should lead both to a section in the final report and a separate appendix document. Antoine [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReport > > On 16 Feb 2011, at 12:48, Antoine Isaac wrote: > >> Hi Jodi, >> >> >>> I've used transclusion to copy the use case sections into a copy of the draft report: >>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/DraftReportWithTransclusion >>> Please let me know if this is what you had in mind! >>> [...] >>> >>> I have left the original draft report unchanged in place at >>> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/index.php?title=DraftReport >>> If we want to make significant changes to be reflected in both of these, we should talk about how to best do that. For instance, by separating out each section into a wiki page, or finding another collaborative writing system. >>> >>> Let me know if any of this needs adjustment! >> >> >> Thanks a lot for this. Personally, that's precisely what I wanted to see. And I don't think the transclusion needs adjustment itself: > > Great -- thanks for this! > >> it's rather the content that is being transcluded that needs further selection/curation :-) > > I agree. > >> >> I think your suggestion of separating out each section into a wiki page, which could then be better curated by individual curators, is a good idea. > > Wonderful. If someone separates each section, I'll be happy to adjust the transclusion. Let me know. > > :) -Jodi > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Antoine >> >
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 14:59:19 UTC