W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Respec bugs

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 15:55:46 +0100
Message-ID: <518915F2.7010902@w3.org>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
CC: spec-prod@w3.org
I guess that what threw me initially was the specStatus name FPWD-NOTE, 
which I think should be just FP-NOTE or some such - since a NOTE that is 
published straight away isn't a WD.  I read it as FPWD intended to 
eventually become a NOTE. Wrong!

It would be helpful to add a note (small n) to 
http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html#saving-the-generated-specification 
to clarify this. It currently says (my emphasis):

"Some of the header notably depends on whether the specification is on 
"Rec-track", *which is the case if* the specStatus is one of: "FPWD", 
"WD", "LC", "CR", "PR", "PER", or "REC"."

which gives the impression that FPWD what you pick for docs intended for 
the Rec track, and doesn't hint to you that you can actually have a FPWD 
but still set noRecTrack to true.  Presumably that same applies to WD, 
if you take a few iterations before NOTE publication.

RI


On 07/05/2013 15:44, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 07/05/2013 16:41 , Richard Ishida wrote:
>> This goes away if you select FPWD rather than FPWD-NOTE, and set
>> noRecTrack to true.
>
> Yes, that happens to be the way to publish a first public Note. You have
> to not make it a Note. Don't blame ReSpec for that :)
>


-- 
Richard Ishida, W3C
http://rishida.net/
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 14:56:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:18 UTC