- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:55:29 +0100
- To: <spec-prod@w3.org>
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 3:47 AM, fantasai wrote: > On 01/14/2014 01:13 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > > So, one o the items we have on the publication pipeline wishlist is the > > ability to automatically copy editors drafts on www.w3.org. > > > > My guess would be that we would put them under /drafts/ or /editors/. > > > > In order to facilitate the task of the script that would do this copy, > > I'm wondering if requiring a manifest file would be acceptable. That > > would avoid having to determine the dependencies between resources in > > the document. > > > > The logic would be something like: [...] Wouldn't it be much simpler to just set up a (caching) proxy? All you would then need to provide is the URL(s) to proxy. Alternatively, the Mercurial repositories could be used. It's quite trivial to sync a Git repo into Mercurial but it might be even simpler if W3C would decide to run a Git server as well. > > Not sure how to approach the problem of keeping it up-to-date yet. > > Ideally, the editor should have nothing to do and it's done > > automatically for him, but I don't imagine yet our systems pulling all > > the editors draft every minute. We might be able to listen to > > notifications out of github however. That would be a no-brainer using either a proxy or a repo. > What do people think? > > Why wouldn't these drafts simply be showing up as > http://www.w3.org/TR/shortname/ ? Because the expectation is that stuff in TR space "never" changes. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 08:55:59 UTC