Re: [SpecGL] Editorial changes - 8 March 2005

Le 09 mars 2005, à 05:22, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux a écrit :
> Le mardi 08 mars 2005 à 17:53 -0500, Karl Dubost a écrit :
>> 08 March 2005
>> 	* 1040: Done change structure/numbering
>> 		There's a need for an XSLT to create the TOC catching h1 to h5
>
> FWIW, before working on this, I think we need:
> - a proposal and the implementation to fix 1058 (structure and 
> numbering
> inconsistent)
> - at least the start of implementing our fix to 1144 (workflow and spec
> spec mix up)

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1058
	Todo: Propose a Numbering Scheme for the document.
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1144
	This one is independant of any XSLT (not the result of the XSLT, I 
agree).

I will work on both as next priority. :) It will be easier to create 
the TOC and then to navigate in the Editors version.

>> PS: Dom, do you mind if we switch from REMIND to something which means
>> there's nothing more to do with it, when the editorial changes have
>> been made.
>
> Well, I interpreted the "REMIND" state as meaning "we still need to get
> back to the commenter"; I think the best we can do to help tracking
> sub-states is using keywords; I have been using "needsAction" when an
> issue resolution was pending an action item for someone, and
> "needsReview" when an issue resolution was pending approval of a
> proposed resolution. So we could add a new keyword, either
> "needsImplementation" and change all the issues that haven't been
> implemented yet, or "implemented" and change all the issues that have
> been implemented. What do you think?

Implemented is a good idea. Because I was surprised, you had modified 
things in the document, without seeing the changes in the modification 
at the bottom. :) So  a keyword would help indeed or the CVS log.
	"Implemented" is a good suggestion.

>> Possible contradiction:
>> Issue 986 - Conformance section for a technology or for a
>> specification	RESOLUTION: Solved with the notion of Umbrella
>> Specification.
>
> FWIW, I don't think the notion of umbrella specification ever really
> solved the problem, since it was not used in any normative part of
> SpecGL; in addition, I think our current requirement that any technical
> report should have a conformance section solves this issue (although 
> not
> very elegantly).

ack.



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2005 12:25:23 UTC