- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 18:29:00 -0700
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: > On Saturday, 22 June 2013 at 09:51, Dave Raggett wrote: >> Hi Philippe, >> >> In regard to the new publishing process could you please clarify what >> you meant by: >> >> > One of the information that I'm interested in exposing is the links >> > to editor's drafts, which will allow us to generate a version of /TR >> > with them. We'll get the links directly from the documents so, again, >> > no additional step needed from the editors. >> > >> see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2013AprJun/0024.html >> >> Does this mean that editor's drafts will now be copied /TR, or is it >> more about just adding links from regular WDs to the latest editor's draft? > > Again, it would be amazing if we could put Editor's drafts on /TR/. The only things that Editor's drafts would need to include is: > > 1. links to IPR relevant versions for the lawyers, including FPWD and any Lawyer Call (LC) and any Rec. > 2. Make sure that quality is maintained (PubRules must pass, including copyright, disclosure links, valid markup, valid CSS, no broken links, etc., etc.) > > It could be a kind of continuous integration thing … or a two click "check my spec!" -> If all good? "Click here to put it on TR!". +1. While a lot of groups put the ED link in the spec header now, the actual urls are often scattered around, or have ridiculous untypeable Hg repo urls. It would be nice to have nice consistent /TR urls for this kind of thing. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 24 June 2013 01:29:47 UTC