Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 21, 2018

Conversation

palemieux
Copy link
Contributor

Closes #436

Copy link

@dwsinger dwsinger left a 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

@silviapfeiffer
Copy link
Member

Can we get @tmichel07 input on this? What is the usual way this is done in the W3C?

@nigelmegitt
Copy link
Contributor

not as clear about the relationship as I would like, but whatever

@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>
Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link

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.

Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Member

@silviapfeiffer silviapfeiffer Apr 9, 2018

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

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK by me

Copy link
Contributor

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>
Copy link
Member

@silviapfeiffer silviapfeiffer Apr 9, 2018

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

@dwsinger
Copy link

I think Silvia's change is fine. Let's do it. Getting the CR done is more important than finessing this more.

Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt left a 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.

@silviapfeiffer
Copy link
Member

OK, let's merge it then.

@silviapfeiffer silviapfeiffer merged commit deb3ad5 into gh-pages Apr 21, 2018
@silviapfeiffer silviapfeiffer deleted the issue-436-clarify-CR-SOTD branch April 21, 2018 07:16
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants