Re: Some thoughts on a new publication approach

Le 29/10/2013 13:06, Richard Ishida a écrit :
> I have two concerns. Can you assure me that I won't have a problem?
>
> [1] tying review comments back the the original document
>
> The i18n WG has been lately finding it difficult to finalise the review
> of some specs because the comments were made on an editor's draft that
> was changed, sometimes to the point that the original text wwas
> completely removed, before the review comments were discussed with the
> WG. This makes it sometimes extremely difficult understand the original
> review comment.  What we need is to be able to point to a dated version
> of the document that will persist.
>
> [2] finding old text
>
> We have also had significant problems with features completely
> disappearing from editor's drafts in a way that made it difficult to go
> back to the original thinking. In some cases, this was because an editor
> independently decided to change things and didn't think to create a
> snapshot, and in others it was because a feature was removed in favour
> of a later version, but the text was not moved to another document.
>
> I'm all for streamlining and simplification, but I hope that it will
> still be possible to*easily*  link to dated versions of specs and that
> editors will think to produce them at regular or useful intervals.

Ideally, each spec would have a link to a web-browsable view of its 
source repository, where every revision ever published can be viewed and 
the files served with a proper Content-Type header.

For example:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/raw-file/db9b855680ef/css-syntax/Overview.html

Richard, would that help?


Admittedly, this needs to be more discoverable. Also, unfortunately, 
GitHub insist of sending everything as text/plain for its "raw" view. 
http://rawgithub.com/ helps, but we may want something more robust.

-- 
Simon Sapin

Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2013 15:17:37 UTC