- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 15:17:13 +0000
- To: spec-prod@w3.org
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