W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2014

RE: Copying editors' drafts in W3C space

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 08:36:46 -0500
Message-ID: <1389879406.2159.9.camel@chacal>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Cc: spec-prod@w3.org
On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 09:55 +0100, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> 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?

Technically simpler, probably but, at the minimum, we wouldn't be able
to guarantee our privacy policy if we set up a 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 all editors draft are in classic or widespread versioning systems so
I'd be reluctant to have a requirement to use our mercurial server or
github. Having said that, we should be able to do some specific for
github however. This would help preserve some of the history for

> > 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.

Documents are at the end of shortname do change, even if it's a
Recommendation. However, they receive a higher level of review than
editors drafts and are endorsed by the Working Groups at the minimum. I
don't expect editor's drafts to necessarily be endorsed by the Working
Group, that's up to the Group to decide I think.

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 13:36:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:19 UTC