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

Re: Editor's notes

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 08:23:10 -0800
Cc: spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Elika Etemad <fantasai@inkedblade.net>
Message-Id: <2761EA2D-CD06-4452-9A09-23704A192C15@greggkellogg.net>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
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

> On Feb 19, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com> wrote:
> Hi Spec Editors,
> Some specs feature "editors notes", which are notes that an editor
> leaves for the reader or for themselves for whatever reason. These
> editors notes are styled in the same way as regular notes (green box,
> with a bold "heading").
> We are wondering, should such editors notes be stylistically
> distinguished from regular spec notes (and, should they be included at
> all in specs)?
> If the answer is "yes, they should be styled differently": then we
> should decide on how to distinguish them in "base.css" (see [1]).
> If the answer is "no, just keep them the same", then ReSpec will
> automagically start to convert them to "notes" (by changing the css
> class value to from "ednote" to "note").  If I don't hear any
> responses, I'll assume "no" and change ReSpec to match.
> Kind regards,
> Marcos
> [1] https://github.com/w3c/tr-design/issues/110
Received on Monday, 20 February 2017 16:23:48 UTC

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