Re: User Agent Implementation Guides

Why don't you go with option 2. Option 1 has some risk.

I think we should consider that the 1.1 UAIG you create may be 
short-lived. I think it's likely we will soon move the sources to 
another location, and also reasonably likely that we will sub-divide the 
guidance differently than we did for 1.0. But if you want to do a 
1.0-like 1.1 UAIG in PF sources folder for now to hold content until we 
do that, it should be ok.

You will need to update your build to create the editors draft. It may 
be as simple, if your is up to date from CVS, to do the 

Uncomment the lines at the bottom that have ARIA 1.1 stuff.

Add the following lines after that:

     <implementation.file description="Source for the ARIA 


On 26/02/2014 9:38 AM, Joseph Scheuhammer wrote:
> On 2014-02-25 6:14 PM, Michael Cooper wrote:
>> You could continue to refine thinking and begin to develop content in 
>> the meantime, and think about how you would like the modules to look 
>> as a stating point for the discussion in March. I don't want you to 
>> take this as trying to hold you up, but it's a choice of working on 
>> this or getting ARIA 1.0 out, and I believe the latter is the more 
>> urgent priority.
> I don't want to interrupt the ARIA 1.0 process.  Hopefully, the 
> following is an easy question:  if I make edits to the current UAIG, 
> and publish them as editors' drafts, will that interfere with what you 
> are doing?  I've been assuming it does, and held off on changing 
> anything.
> If that does interfere, a second possibility is to create a separate 
> 1.1 UAIG editors' document, as was done for the aria-1.1 spec, and 
> confine the edits to that, is that okay?  That's not ideal, but might 
> work for now, and then we can properly fork and tag, or move to 
> mercurial, and use ReSpec, etc, and so on...
> /me trying find a solution that doesn't interrupt you.

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2014 15:30:35 UTC