- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:32:44 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- CC: <spec-prod@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
On 27-02-14 17:59, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > On Saturday, February 15, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote: > >> >> On Feb 15, 2014, at 6:06 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org (mailto:robin@w3.org)> wrote: >> >>> On 13/02/2014 14:47 , Ian Jacobs wrote: >>>> A Working Group Note does not need to have been previously published >>>> as a Working Draft. >>> >>> >>> >>> Right, but does that not make it a FPWG-NOTE? >> >> >> Hi Robin, >> >> This may or may not help: >> >> * I thought the original question was "Do you need to publish a WD before you publish a NOTE?" In state transition terms, no. >> * It may be that there are mechanisms in place to help the publishing process. Like a clear label to distinguish the first NOTE >> from other ones. For example, if we are looking for the previous version link, it's nice to say to the checker "There isn't one, this >> is the first time this NOTE has been published." >> >> I see you using these labels: >> >> FPWG-NOTE means "first in the series" >> NOTE means "any one after the first" > > > Given the above, I've fixed the bug in ReSpec that any "*-NOTE" requires a previous published document. This includes notes of class GG, IG, FPWD (!), and just "NOTE". > > PR is here - appreciate review: > https://github.com/darobin/respec/pull/296 > > Hopefully this will put an end to the madness :) > Thanks. I should add that ReSpec is a tremendous improvement (and sometimes life saver) compared to old methods. Thanks for that as well! Guus
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2014 17:33:12 UTC