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

Re: WG-NOTE and Previous Version

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:32:44 +0100
Message-ID: <530F76BC.80603@vu.nl>
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

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