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

Re: Editor's notes

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:43:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBKrF+k1i=Q=XxtJQhkmV3aOA8H5hky6TZ_VmDHC0HB5A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote:
> 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).

Note that Bikeshed can do this too; you just tag the issue with the
Github issue number. It still classifies everything that's a problem
to be resolved as an "issue", and styles them accordingly; I think
that's arguably the right thing to do.

"Note" styling (green background) should be reserved for actual spec
notes - additional info that is helpful to the reader of the spec.

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2017 17:44:47 UTC

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