Re: ReSpec CANDIDATE CORRECTION wizardry

Hi fantasai,

Apologies, I'm embarrassed to say that I hadn't seen these updates to the README until now - so totally missed that you'd documented and figured this all out already. 

We might need to do a better job at communicating when the README and related files in tr-design get updated. For when there is pre-processor advice (e.g., section 2.2.6.3), it would be really helpful to file bugs on the pre-processors to let us know what we should be doing. Maybe we should add that as a "todo" to a .github pull request template on tr-design?  

I'll add the tr-design repo to the weekly summary that already includes the ReSpec and bikeshed updates. Hopefully that way, I won't miss these kinds of changes in the future.   


> On 9 Nov 2021, at 4:07 am, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> 
> On 11/7/21 6:48 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> 
>> We could take up the discussion there, along with what we want to see/do to make this less painful.
>> For example:
>>  * where should we gather the list of candidate corrections/additions? In the SoTD? In their own section?
> 
> In their own section. The point is that people reading a particular section of the spec can know what change is being proposed to that spec. If candidate amendments are kept in a separate place, it's got the same cross-referencing problems as our previous "solution" of maintaining an errata page. (Mainly, that people forget to cross-reference the errata when looking things up.)
> 
>>  * What do we do about inline corrections? base.css doesn't say it supports "span" elements, for instance.
> 
> Not sure I understand what you're asking for. INS and DEL are inline elements, they can easily be used to mark up inline changes?
> 
> https://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/2016/README#amendment
> 
>>  * Should people be using ins/del for these?
> 
> Yes, that is required, see
>  https://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/2016/README#amendment
> 
>> Apparently, from a discussion elsewhere, those elements are not accessible.
> 
> If that's the case, then it's a problem with all HTML diff formatting, not just candidate amendments, and the best you can do is write a proper description of the changes to accompany the diffs.
> 
> ~fantasai
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2021 00:22:35 UTC