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

Re: Editor's notes

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:12:39 -0500
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <aa2b0226-aa46-2596-5d4e-e80b2806cb91@inkedblade.net>
On 02/22/2017 01:35 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> 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

So, here's a question: is there a reason why ednotes should not use .issue styling?

(Because, as I mentioned, the CSSWG has been getting along fine with using .issue for this class of usage.)

Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 19:13:13 UTC

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