Re: Editor's drafts on /TR/… ftw, was Re: new TR tools and editor's drafts?

On Jun 23, 2013 9:30 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>

+1 for consistent, it currently bothers me.  Some google links to web
components are broken - let's try to avoid that too.