- 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>
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.) ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 19:13:13 UTC