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

Re: Editor's notes

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 07:49:02 -0600
Message-Id: <AAA9B16C-E01A-402C-8141-CF9A5BC125CD@greggkellogg.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
In specs I work on (JSON-LD and others) ednote is used during development to communicate status between editors. Issues, at tied back to GitHub and cover more long-standing discussions about spec content that are usually not simple editorial points. Please keep ednote.

Gregg Kellogg
Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 19, 2017, at 7:40 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
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 20 February 2017 13:49:10 UTC

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