W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2017

Re: Editor's notes

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 22:40:19 -0500
To: spec-prod@w3.org
Message-ID: <ffab4a06-3fa2-a4e4-f90b-72f503f20e1f@inkedblade.net>
On 02/19/2017 09:53 PM, Michael Cooper wrote:
> For me keeping the concept of editors' notes separate from regular notes is important.
>
> Regular notes are interpretive guidance about the spec features.
>
> Editors' notes are statements about the production of the spec, such as "this is incomplete", "we really want input on this",
> etc. My practice is to remove editors' notes by Rec (and don't mind if Pubrules wants to enforce that), and I make sure
> they're pretty minimal from CR on, but in Working Draft I use them a lot.
>
> I'm agnostic about the style, for me the different note header is enough but see value in a greater style differentiation. I
> would not want to lose the feature from Respec.

The CSSWG uses class="issue" for such notes. So the question is, is there a three-way distinction in regular use (note vs. 
ednote vs. issue) or just a two-way distinction (note vs. issue).

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 20 February 2017 03:40:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:22 UTC