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: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:36:25 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBOyPOHB_Quu4-zAR3mqNsNr6Hu25PDOxpvFdcCz+GpaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:39 AM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote:
> A regular note is typically non normative content that remains in a spec
> forever. Ed notes are more ephemeral and generally are ascot the document
> and its development rather than advice about the normative content .

For both of the examples given in your previous message, the CSSWG has
either used regular notes, or just source-document comments, and not
seen a problem.

All of this is supporting the argument that "ednote" doesn't have a
strong semantic concept, making it unclear precisely when to use it.
The existing note/issue dichotomy is very clear in comparison - info
vs problems.  Source-document comments handle the final category of
"notes to future self / other editors, that aren't relevant to other
spec readers".

Received on Friday, 24 February 2017 21:43:54 UTC

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