Change to PR status. - #999
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pubrules says:
Did not find information about a forum for AC Representative feedback.
|
|
||
| <p>An implementation report is available | ||
| at <loc href="https://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/TTML2ImplementationReport">implementation | ||
| report</loc> documenting that, for each feature introduced in this |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Minor editorial point - this reads strangely "An implementation report is available at implementation report documenting that..." Suggest changing to:
<p>The <loc href="https://www.w3.org/wiki/TTML/TTML2ImplementationReport">implementation
report</loc> documents that, for each feature introduced in this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ok; also, where can I find a link to use for AC feedback?
| 2 (TTML2) Change Summary</loc>. An abbreviated list of changes | ||
| affecting language syntax can be found at | ||
| with a subject line starting with <code>[ttml2]</code>. | ||
| The deadline for AC Representative feedback is 01 November 2018.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think Pubrules wants an actual link to an actual feedback mechanism for the AC. I used https://github.com/w3c/ttml1/pull/367/files#diff-7a4f57e97ab443cec920609ffd9d4681R18 and it seems to satisfy it, though Link Checker complains it is behind an ACL.
|
@nigelmegitt pubrules is happy now |
|
The Timed Text Working Group just discussed The full IRC log of that discussion<nigel> Topic: Change to PR status. ttml2#999<nigel> github: https://github.com//pull/999 <nigel> Glenn: I fixed the pubrules issue so please re-review. <nigel> Nigel: Note that this (build) branch is the one the CfC points at. <nigel> Glenn: I'd prefer to merge it. <nigel> Nigel: Merging it means the ED gives the impression that we have moved to PR already. <nigel> Pierre: It's an editorial decision. Something else to consider is that for substantive changes <nigel> .. merge them into master and then merge that back into the proposed rec branch, so <nigel> .. the ED is always synced and the PR branch has the substantive text. <nigel> Glenn: I understand but have not done that practice so far and do not with to change. <nigel> .. It's not a bad idea. &l 8000 t;nigel> .. The only intent with this pull request is to get to PR, not to bless the branch as a review <nigel> .. branch. Since it's already out I can't change that now. <nigel> .. People looking at the ED might get confused. <nigel> Nigel: I'm concerned with confusion also, in case someone outside the WG thinks the spec <nigel> .. has already been transitioned to PR when they look at the ED. <nigel> .. This doesn't really matter, we've done it both ways for different specs. |
| <loc | ||
| href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tt/">archives</loc>) | ||
| with a subject line starting with <code>[ttml2]</code>. | ||
| The deadline for AC Representative feedback is 01 November 2018.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pubrules good practice says to include the deadline for AC feedback as well as providing the link, I learned yesterday.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's already there. See the previous sentence.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That looks like a deadline for general comments, not a deadline for AC review.
|
@nigelmegitt there are no unaddressed comments; please approve |
|
@nigelmegitt it isn't the business of the SoTD to establish the AC review timeline; I followed the content found in a recently published PR [1] as a template; you are asking for more than is required or needed |
|
@nigelmegitt and it does so, and passes pubrules, so there is no need for a change |
|
@skynavga it doesn't state the end of the AC review period. |
|
@nigel 729A megitt this is the kind of bothersome, unnecessary, time-consuming, pedantic, nit-picking that I have cautioned you about (repeatedly); if the pubrules checker is not complaining and the W3C is publishing PRs [1][2][3][4] that use this same language, then why are you complaining??? it is silly to say "submit comments by DATE" followed by "AC review deadline is DATE"; none of the PRs cited below use the phrase "AC review deadline" or similar; if you insist on a change, then please make it directly to the PR branch and then approve for me to merge or go ahead and merge yourself [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/PR-selectors-3-20180911/ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've made the change; as stated on last week's call, I would prefer that we do not merge this yet so that the ED does not suggest to those who don't follow the WG's work closely that the WG has reached consensus on this draft. I'm happy to wait until the CfC is closed and then merge. Since I've addressed the comment, approving.
No description provided.