-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Clarify relationship between CR and CG report #437
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
not as clear about the relationship as I would like, but whatever
Can we get @tmichel07 input on this? What is the usual way this is done in the W3C? |
@dwsinger What aspects of the relationship do readers of the spec need to know about? |
<p> | ||
This is a Recommendation Track snapshot. For the latest updates, possibly including important | ||
bug fixes, please see the <a href="https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/">Draft Community Group Report</a>. | ||
<button>Dismiss</button> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure why the snapshot guidance needs to be removed; I agree with @silviapfeiffer we need W3 guidance on what is "normal" when managing specs in two places at once like this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would prefer to give readers something of a hint that the Rec-track document is managed by the WG, but that if they have extensions/improvements/exploratory-ideas, the CG may be a better place to send those. But it's OK, we can easily dispatch bugs on the Rec-track document from the CG to the WG if they end up mis-routed, and hazy ideas for the future from the WG to the CG to be explored.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's true. Plus I think the best forum for communicating about the spec is via GitHub repo issues, and anyone can do that whether they're in the CG, WG, both or neither.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I propose we change
<a href="https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/">Draft Community Group Report</a>
to
<a href="https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/">Editor's Draft</a>
And then keep this section
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK by me
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There should already be an Editor's Draft link at the top of the document. If the solution is to change the link to the ED then we should just remove the whole paragraph as per the pull request. Folk don't need to be told that the ED might be more up to date, that's obvious.
<p> | ||
This is a Recommendation Track snapshot. For the latest updates, possibly including important | ||
bug fixes, please see the <a href="https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/">Draft Community Group Report</a>. | ||
<button>Dismiss</button> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I propose we change
<a href="https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/">Draft Community Group Report</a>
to
<a href="https://w3c.github.io/webvtt/">Editor's Draft</a>
And then keep this section
I think Silvia's change is fine. Let's do it. Getting the CR done is more important than finessing this more. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would prefer to merge this pull request as it is now without making any further changes.
OK, let's merge it then. |
Closes #436