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

Re: Editor's notes

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 22:35:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAwChxPL08b5RPPiSWhA+=Dwgxe4TTatUmUdwqQyYkd5tJ3W=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
On February 22, 2017 at 4:45:45 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. (jackalmage@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Shane McCarron 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.

Shameless plug, but works the same in ReSpec [1].

> 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.

I tend to agree with the above: ednotes probably should not be green.

[1] https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/Referencing-GitHub-issues-in-your-spec
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 06:35:46 UTC

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