Re: Final CG report publication form is confusing

[Adding PLH regarding publishing and Coralie regarding group harmonization]

> On Jan 3, 2018, at 7:27 PM, Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@comcast.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ian,
> 
> FYI, I love the whole web site setup for CGs. It's really clean and easy and enables us CGers us focus on the work. The only reason I expected publishing to be fully automated is that everything else is! :-)

Thanks, Mark. 

PLH and others on the Systems Team have made great strides in automating publication (e.g., from GitHub to the TR page). I am no longer involved in CG development, and so I have not
investigated leveraging those mechanisms for CG reports.

> Two other things, more long term, for when you get to CG/BG website 2.0 (if ever!):
> 
> 1. GitHub integration: I think the big W3C switch to GitHub happened after CG/BG sites were launched. François made us a posting on our front page to point to our three GitHub repos, with a link to each spec and a link to each issues list. Of course that posting will scroll down. An additional standard area on CG/BG home pages that list the one or more GitHub repositories along with a link to the specs and issues lists would probably become the number one link clicked on CG home pages.

There are a couple of ways we can do that today:

 * We have any easy way to include a single link to a single repo from the “Tools for this group” section of your CG home page. Your CG has already taken advantage of that.
 * We (the staff) can add Menus to the right side of the page, e.g., under the “Tools” section. I will create the menu for you if you send me:
   a) A title for the menu as a whole (analogous to “Tools for this group”)
   b) The list of URLs and, for each one, the link text you’d like to use.

> 2. IG integration: Having used the CG site for some time, my IG co-editors and I agreed that we wished that IGs were part of this same web home page structure. I think Kaz may have already related that to the team. There's so few IGs, the existing CG/BG web site structure would be fine, rather than a special one. Most things (maybe not all) would work the same across CG/BG/IG.

I am adding Coralie to the discussion here as your comment may be input to one topic of interest to them (group harmonization).

Ian

> 

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel: +1 718 260 9447

Received on Monday, 8 January 2018 23:08:30 UTC