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

Re: Editor's notes

From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 06:41:39 -0600
Message-ID: <CAJdbnODWRu8otfeiiGCm1h15ei-LQJhWCJXmE77H2X21B6yH1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
There is definitely a 3 way disctinction.  ReSpec, in particular, can
inject information about "issues" and tie them into github issue
discussions.  These are distinct from "notes" (non-normative advice to the
reader / implementor) and "ednotes" (information the editor wants to
capture and bring to the attention of a reviewer for future action).

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 9:40 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Monday, 20 February 2017 12:42:40 UTC

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