Should EDs have an UNOFFICIAL DRAFT background? #186
Comments
|
Please check DREAM too. UD already shows the UNOFFICIAL DRAFT background. |
|
@jyasskin can you kindly provide some links to specific documents? I just checked some of my own ones, but was not able to reproduce. |
|
https://wicg.github.io/webpackage/loading.html has the ED status and does not have the "UNOFFICIAL DRAFT" background. If I change it to have the CG-DRAFT status locally and re-bikeshed, it does get the background. EDs are no more official than CG-DRAFTs, so it's weird that we'd only give the background to one of them. |
Ah, got it. And yes, we are treating ED as "more official" in that ED is a W3C Working Group Draft. Could you please change web packaging to CG-DRAFT? We deliberately don't want CG-Drafts to look "official", because it confuses the community (people think these are "standards", which they are not), and we want to encourage more folks to move their incubations to a WG, given support from multiple implementers. |
|
Fixed a few typos above... sorry about that. Need coffee. |
|
@marcoscaceres i think this issue isn't limited to web packaging / loading. It's true a good number of WICG repos. Just from scrolling through: |
|
Great, thanks. I'll raise an issue in the WICG to make this happen systematically. I didn't realize ED was only for WG drafts. |
|
@snyderp, thanks, will switch those over. Sometimes those slip through. |
|
No worries, there are some more too. Might be worth just auditing them all |
|
@tabatkins, it appears that BikeShed is indeed not loading up the right stylesheet for "w3c/CG-DRAFT"? Or is it that the specs haven't been regenerated in a while? @snyderp, if you could help us with auditing, that would be greatly appreciated. We did an audit a few months ago already, so it should only be whatever new repos were added in the last 6 months ... so probably only like 5 or 6. Sent PRs for the ones above where needed. |
|
Sure, what do you have in mind?
… On Feb 10, 2020, at 10:09 PM, Marcos Cáceres ***@***.***> wrote:
@tabatkins, it appears that BikeShed is indeed not loading up the right stylesheet for "w3c/CG-DRAFT"? Or is it that the specs haven't been regenerated in a while.
@snyderp, if you could help us with auditing, that would be greatly appreciated. We did an audit a few months ago already, so it should only be whatever new repos were added in the last 6 months ... so probably only like 5 or 6. Sent PRs for the ones above where needed.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
|
Just what you did above... if you can find the specs, then send a PR like this one: to change the spec status from "DREAM" or "ED" to "CG-DRAFT". I spotted a few via search: |
|
I see. I think auditing the WICG repos is probably best handled by the WICG chairs and members (I'm not even in the CG). I noticed the problem and found 5 instances of it. I think you all can probably handle it from here ;) |
|
🥺🔥 |
|
@tabatkins, I guess maybe BikeShed specs need to be using "w3c/CG-DRAFT" instead of "CG-DRAFT"? Could that be the issue? |
|
(#186 (comment) was resolved by noticing that the relevant spec didn't set a Group.) Oh, @marcoscaceres, how do you feel about the |
|
Personally, I'd wish DREAM had rainbows and unicorns as a background 🌈🦄 :) But while we wait for that, "UNOFFICIAL DRAFT" seems appropriate. On a more serious note, I know the AC or AB talked about DREAM previously, but I wasn't aware it became an official™️ status at the W3C. Is there more information about it? |
|
It's definitely not official, it's just commonly used because it doesn't connote any official status and it has a cute subheading. ^_^ |
|
So... I think what's happening here is that CG drafts are switching to CG styling, and there's nothing to do for tr-design? Is that correct, @jyasskin ? (I might keep this open for next year, though. Because by next year, we should all be on Process 2020 and at that point there should not be any reason for EDs to be anything other than scratch space.) |
|
@fantasai I believe that's the conclusion this thread arrived at. As I tried to say in my initial post, I just wanted to make sure you'd thought about the question, not push a particular answer. |
|
Agree. We might be able to close this. The CG-Drafts now have the Unofficial watermark in the W3C ED should remain as they are. |
Investigating @snyderp's WICG/admin#79 (comment), I noticed that #177 gave an "UNOFFICIAL DRAFT" background to CG-DRAFTs, but all of my specs are in their repositories with
Status: ED, notStatus: CG-DRAFT, so they wind up looking more official. Could y'all make sure that what's happening is what you intend?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: