Using ReSpec.js for publication as Interest Group Note

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

Using ReSpec.js for publication as Interest Group Note

Francois Daoust
Salut Robin,

I've been using ReSpec.js to prepare the publication of an Interest Group Note. I used the "IG-NOTE" specStatus value for that. It all goes fine and ReSpec.js is just fantastic, but:

- ReSpec.js generates TR URIs starting with "IG-NOTE", whereas pubrules stick to "NOTE"

- ReSpec.js generates the usual patent disclosure boilerplate in the Status of This Document section, but the text is not the same for IG notes (see bullet 12 of Document status section in pubrules [1]). Instead of the usual text, it should rather be:
  [[ The disclosure obligations of the Participants of this group are described in the [charter]. ]]

Yes, I know that patches are welcome ;)

Thanks,
Francois.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?year=2011&uimode=filter&filter=Filter+pubrules&filterValues=form&docstatus=ig-note-tr&patpol=w3c&rectrack=yes&normative=yes&prevrec=none#document-status

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Using ReSpec.js for publication as Interest Group Note

Robin Berjon-2
Salut!

W3C has too many document types ;-)

On Nov 29, 2011, at 12:09 , Francois Daoust wrote:
> - ReSpec.js generates TR URIs starting with "IG-NOTE", whereas pubrules stick to "NOTE"

This should now be fixed.

> - ReSpec.js generates the usual patent disclosure boilerplate in the Status of This Document section, but the text is not the same for IG notes (see bullet 12 of Document status section in pubrules [1]). Instead of the usual text, it should rather be:
> [[ The disclosure obligations of the Participants of this group are described in the [charter]. ]]

This should be fixed as well. You will need to specify the new charterDisclosureURI configuration setting. One additional thing that gets generated for IG-NOTEs is the "The group does not expect this document to become a W3C Recommendation." paragraph. It seemed appropriate, but I'm not sure. If you think it shouldn't be there, please let me know it's simple to not have it be generated.

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Using ReSpec.js for publication as Interest Group Note

Francois Daoust
On 11/29/2011 12:48 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Salut!
>
> W3C has too many document types ;-)
>
> On Nov 29, 2011, at 12:09 , Francois Daoust wrote:
>> - ReSpec.js generates TR URIs starting with "IG-NOTE", whereas pubrules stick to "NOTE"
>
> This should now be fixed.

Cool!

>
>> - ReSpec.js generates the usual patent disclosure boilerplate in the Status of This Document section, but the text is not the same for IG notes (see bullet 12 of Document status section in pubrules [1]). Instead of the usual text, it should rather be:
>> [[ The disclosure obligations of the Participants of this group are described in the [charter]. ]]
>
> This should be fixed as well. You will need to specify the new charterDisclosureURI configuration setting.

Yeepee!


>  One additional thing that gets generated for IG-NOTEs is the "The group does not expect this document to become a W3C Recommendation." paragraph. It seemed appropriate, but I'm not sure. If you think it shouldn't be there, please let me know it's simple to not have it be generated.

I'm slightly leaning towards not including that sentence but I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I'd say that a Note is often a final stage and saying that the document is not expected to become a W3C Recommendation still suggests that it could become something else. The SOTD should already contain a customized paragraph mentioning the group's expectations about potential further steps.

Francois.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Using ReSpec.js for publication as Interest Group Note

Robin Berjon-2
On Nov 29, 2011, at 13:52 , Francois Daoust wrote:
> Yeepee!

Have you tested it? I'd like to be sure that it works in someone else's hands :)

> I'm slightly leaning towards not including that sentence but I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I'd say that a Note is often a final stage and saying that the document is not expected to become a W3C Recommendation still suggests that it could become something else. The SOTD should already contain a customized paragraph mentioning the group's expectations about potential further steps.

Okay, I've pulled it.

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Using ReSpec.js for publication as Interest Group Note

Francois Daoust
On 11/29/2011 02:26 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2011, at 13:52 , Francois Daoust wrote:
>> Yeepee!
>
> Have you tested it? I'd like to be sure that it works in someone else's hands :)

Right, "yeepee" is not exactly semantically rich... I tested it your updates locally. The generated result is fine, yes.

I just committed a fix for a nit in the SOTD since ReSpec.js generated "Publication as a Interest Group Note [blah]" instead of "Publication as *an* Interest Group Note [blah]".

Francois.

>
>> I'm slightly leaning towards not including that sentence but I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I'd say that a Note is often a final stage and saying that the document is not expected to become a W3C Recommendation still suggests that it could become something else. The SOTD should already contain a customized paragraph mentioning the group's expectations about potential further steps.
>
> Okay, I've pulled it.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Using ReSpec.js for publication as Interest Group Note

Robin Berjon-2
On Nov 29, 2011, at 14:51 , Francois Daoust wrote:
> I just committed a fix for a nit in the SOTD since ReSpec.js generated "Publication as a Interest Group Note [blah]" instead of "Publication as *an* Interest Group Note [blah]".

Good catch! Heh, this just shows how much attention people pay to SotD in general. This bug has clearly been there forever — searching for "publication as a editor's draft" returns 4900 results :)

Thanks!

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon