ReSpec and PERs

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ReSpec and PERs

Shane McCarron
I know that PERs are pretty rare, but we in the RDFa working group are doing 3 or 4 right now.  It turns out that ReSpec doesn't have anything in the SoTD template for handling PERs really.  Like reviews, end dates, etc.  

I am inclined to add it so that the next group doesn't get surprised like we did.  Any objections?

--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ReSpec and PERs

Tobie Langel-3
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 20:26, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I know that PERs are pretty rare, but we in the RDFa working group are doing 3 or 4 right now.  It turns out that ReSpec doesn't have anything in the SoTD template for handling PERs really.  Like reviews, end dates, etc.
>
> I am inclined to add it so that the next group doesn't get surprised like we did.  Any objections?

LGTM.

Might want to loop in Ian to approve whatever prose is needed for this.

--tobie

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ReSpec and PERs

Shane McCarron
Good idea.  Ian, is there boilerplate?

On Monday, December 1, 2014, Tobie Langel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2014, at 20:26, Shane McCarron <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;shane@aptest.com&#39;)">shane@...> wrote:
>
> I know that PERs are pretty rare, but we in the RDFa working group are doing 3 or 4 right now.  It turns out that ReSpec doesn't have anything in the SoTD template for handling PERs really.  Like reviews, end dates, etc.
>
> I am inclined to add it so that the next group doesn't get surprised like we did.  Any objections?

LGTM.

Might want to loop in Ian to approve whatever prose is needed for this.

--tobie


--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ReSpec and PERs

Ian Jacobs-2

On Dec 1, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Good idea.  Ian, is there boilerplate?

From pubrules [1]:

 "Publication as a Proposed Edited Recommendation does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress."

Is that what you are looking for? (There are other bits in [1] for PER's, so go to town! :)

Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?year=2014&uimode=filter&filter=Filter+pubrules&filterValues=form&docstatus=per-tr&patpol=w3c&rectrack=yes&normative=yes&procrev=2005&prevrec=none#docreqs

>
> On Monday, December 1, 2014, Tobie Langel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 2014, at 20:26, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I know that PERs are pretty rare, but we in the RDFa working group are doing 3 or 4 right now.  It turns out that ReSpec doesn't have anything in the SoTD template for handling PERs really.  Like reviews, end dates, etc.
> >
> > I am inclined to add it so that the next group doesn't get surprised like we did.  Any objections?
>
> LGTM.
>
> Might want to loop in Ian to approve whatever prose is needed for this.
>
> --tobie
>
>
> --
> Shane McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>

--
Ian Jacobs <[hidden email]>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ReSpec and PERs

Shane McCarron
Thanks for the quick reply.  I think this means that my draft PERs I produced today are wrong, in that they still contain the REC boilerplate.  That's a ReSpec bug.    They say something like:

This document has been reviewed by W3C Members, by software developers, and by other W3C groups and interested parties, and is endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited from another document. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.

This Proposed Edited Recommendation reflects minor editorial changes and changes to references. W3C Advisory Committee Members are invited to send formal review comments on this Proposed Edited Recommendation to the W3C Team until 1 February 2015. Members of the W3C Advisory Committee will find the appropriate review form for this document by consulting their list of current WBS questionnaires.

uggh.  I will look into it right away.



On Monday, December 1, 2014, Ian Jacobs <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Dec 1, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Shane McCarron <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;shane@aptest.com&#39;)">shane@...> wrote:

> Good idea.  Ian, is there boilerplate?

>From pubrules [1]:

 "Publication as a Proposed Edited Recommendation does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress."

Is that what you are looking for? (There are other bits in [1] for PER's, so go to town! :)

Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?year=2014&uimode=filter&filter=Filter+pubrules&filterValues=form&docstatus=per-tr&patpol=w3c&rectrack=yes&normative=yes&procrev=2005&prevrec=none#docreqs

>
> On Monday, December 1, 2014, Tobie Langel <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;tobie.langel@gmail.com&#39;)">tobie.langel@...> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 2014, at 20:26, Shane McCarron <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;shane@aptest.com&#39;)">shane@...> wrote:
> >
> > I know that PERs are pretty rare, but we in the RDFa working group are doing 3 or 4 right now.  It turns out that ReSpec doesn't have anything in the SoTD template for handling PERs really.  Like reviews, end dates, etc.
> >
> > I am inclined to add it so that the next group doesn't get surprised like we did.  Any objections?
>
> LGTM.
>
> Might want to loop in Ian to approve whatever prose is needed for this.
>
> --tobie
>
>
> --
> Shane McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>

--
Ian Jacobs <<a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, &#39;cvml&#39;, &#39;ij@w3.org&#39;)">ij@...>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447





--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ReSpec and PERs

Shane McCarron
I lied - its a bug in our specs.  We had Rec information hardcoded for whatever reason.  Probably because ReSpec didn't used to do as good a job on the SoTD.  Anyway, thanks again.  I will effect repairs AND add some code about PER to ReSpec.

On Monday, December 1, 2014, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply.  I think this means that my draft PERs I produced today are wrong, in that they still contain the REC boilerplate.  That's a ReSpec bug.    They say something like:

This document has been reviewed by W3C Members, by software developers, and by other W3C groups and interested parties, and is endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited from another document. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and interoperability of the Web.

This Proposed Edited Recommendation reflects minor editorial changes and changes to references. W3C Advisory Committee Members are invited to send formal review comments on this Proposed Edited Recommendation to the W3C Team until 1 February 2015. Members of the W3C Advisory Committee will find the appropriate review form for this document by consulting their list of current WBS questionnaires.

uggh.  I will look into it right away.



On Monday, December 1, 2014, Ian Jacobs <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;ij@w3.org&#39;);" target="_blank">ij@...> wrote:

On Dec 1, 2014, at 4:30 PM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Good idea.  Ian, is there boilerplate?

>From pubrules [1]:

 "Publication as a Proposed Edited Recommendation does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress."

Is that what you are looking for? (There are other bits in [1] for PER's, so go to town! :)

Ian

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?year=2014&uimode=filter&filter=Filter+pubrules&filterValues=form&docstatus=per-tr&patpol=w3c&rectrack=yes&normative=yes&procrev=2005&prevrec=none#docreqs

>
> On Monday, December 1, 2014, Tobie Langel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 2014, at 20:26, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I know that PERs are pretty rare, but we in the RDFa working group are doing 3 or 4 right now.  It turns out that ReSpec doesn't have anything in the SoTD template for handling PERs really.  Like reviews, end dates, etc.
> >
> > I am inclined to add it so that the next group doesn't get surprised like we did.  Any objections?
>
> LGTM.
>
> Might want to loop in Ian to approve whatever prose is needed for this.
>
> --tobie
>
>
> --
> Shane McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>

--
Ian Jacobs <[hidden email]>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447





--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.



--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.