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

On Monday, June 24, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:

> On Sat, 2013-06-22 at 14:05 +0100, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > 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.  
>  
> ok
>  
> > 2. Make sure that quality is maintained (PubRules must pass, including copyright, disclosure links, valid markup, valid CSS, no broken links, etc., etc.)
>  
> I'm worried about having such restriction on editor's drafts. A large
> number of publication we're receiving has some errors (in general,
> markup and/or broken links). I would bet that most of the editors'
> drafts are broken in some fashion, and that's ok imho. In other words, I
> would favor a more relax approach for editors' draft than for formal
> publications.

I'm totally ok with that too (less work for Editors means less work for me). I guess this could just be a "good Editor hygiene" kinda thing.  
> > 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!".  
>  
>  
> Yes, but that's not going to happen in the short term. We made progress
> on automation but those are only visible to the webmaster for the
> moment. In addition, the webmaster is still facing a lot of exceptions
> that he has to deal with manually (shortnames changes for example).

Understood… a boy can dream, right? oh, and I want a pony! :)  

In any case, I'm really excited to see the recent changes! I can't thank you all at the W3C enough!

Keep up the awesome work :D  

Kind regards,
Marcos

Received on Monday, 24 June 2013 19:35:15 UTC