See also: IRC log
<scribe> ScribeNick: fantasai
Spec Writing Ecosystem:
* style
*pubrules
*tooling
<ernesto_jimenez> Ernesto Jimenez, Vodafone
<betehess> Alexandre Bertails, W3C, previous webmaster
<gkellogg_> Gregg Kellogg, RDFa, JSON-LD, ...
<arronei> Arron Eicholz, Microsoft
Elika Etemad aka fantasai, edit CSS specs
<eliot> Eliot Graff, Microsoft. Edit polyglot and IndexedDB specs
<ted_mobile> Ted Guild W3C Systems Team
<tmichel> thierry michel W3C
* boilerplate
*rich specs
<dom> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/
Agenda creation
robin: Topic is this big (very big)
dom: Find things not easily addressed today with tools we have
<dom> http://specifiction.com/
robin: Go to
specifiction.com
... The idea is to have a simple interface for updating
bibliographic data
... gives you proper thing to insert into your spec
... not ready for production
... send me feedback
bryan: What about ppl using wikis for specs?
<dom> (3 specs use the word specifiction http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=y6P&channel=fs&q=%22specifiction%22+inurl%3ATR+site%3Awww.w3.org&oq=%22specifiction%22+inurl%3ATR+site%3Awww.w3.org&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e)
plh: Works for some groups. They run a script to generate spec
dom: W3C maintains ...
robin: One problem is it only
does W3C documents
... Two it doesn't list editors in order, so you don't get
right results
dom: That probably needs fixing
robin: Lots of work to update
<dom> http://www.w3.org/2004/07/references-checker-ui
<dom> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/ietf-references-checker
plh: Would be nice to have W3C docs and IETF docs [..] to check if references are out of date
robin: Do people edit on wikis because of wikis, or bccvs really sucks?
bryan: Want easy markup that publishes instantly
karl: wikis are convenient, but poor at expressing semantics in the spec
robin: One idea is to make wysywg version of respec
dom: some groups use a tool that
takes a number of wiki tables and makes a publishable TR
document
... So we have a tool that does this. Sandro was complaining he
doesn't want to maintain it
??: I vote for wysywg spec editor
??: I need more semantics than available in MediaWiki
??: One barrier I've seen in other groups, that brings them back to word, is the wysywg editor
??: editing HTML isn't easy for that.
robin: w3c tools development is underfunded
ted: Part of problem is we have a
lot of pl who are entrenched in their practices
... If we try to come to commo tool, will be very
difficult
... if we can come up with common output that they can all
produce, that ppl have to adhere to
... spec for spec output that can be fed into publication
process
... There might be some ppl that won't produce the additional
data we want without ..
??: .. semantics, address as part of a tool chain
vhardy: Could you converge on a set of tools going forward?
ted: get editors that are old-school, edit in vi
alexandre: people refuse, they just wnat to continue what they're doing
??: It's not the tool that matters but the output
??: Just ensure that spec has enough information to transform into reSpec
alexandre: if you say rdfa, not going to happen in HTMLWG
??: If we feel semantic markup is important...
fantasai: use microformats
ted: since diff editors have
different practices in place, if we can have formal output they
have to produce
... part of this is also the amount of data that is in pubrules
checking
... that should be separate and added during the publication
process
fantasai: In csswg we have macros that insert all the boilerplate junk
bryan: I like ppl that people
focus on text, on content, rather than candy. Wiki is an easy
place to get text in
... Could use as a tool in the editing process
robin: We're not looking at consolidating tools, but have common output
alexandre: intermediate language?
robin: Yes, HTML with some additions
karl: The freedom in editing is a
good feature in W3C. Creates some problems, but a good
thing.
... What's missing is the final output
... that is rich enough at the end that will make spec usable
in different type of context.
... What tools can improve is, there is direct benefit to using
more formal markup
... Tools can give you formal references, autogenerate status,
ties to issues and bugs
... Give ppl useful tool for producing specs, then you will
have adoption
robin: It's worth a shot.
... Let's move on to next topic
... these are useful things, will try to summarize what we've
said and bring to spec-prod
dom: shouldn't have boilerplate
fantasai: boilerplate can be useful. Need place to send feedback, status of document, at the top. But legal disclaimers and here is link to all technical reports not related to my spec, not needed at the top
dom: One consideration is that as
soon as we change pubrules, all editors have to change their
toolchain
... Someone has to make a concrete proposal, iterate with
editors to create a concrete proposal
vhardy: ... propose alternate
design for the specs, styling is one part
... People ask for some interactivity for it. E.g. collapse
some sections
... Don't have an answer, but we're looking at that and see if
we can instrument that
... Idea for Status and Feedback, style so it's more
prominent
plh: Some specs will put this info in the header
vhardy: I thikn status is a
really big one, it's so confusing for most people to
understand
... Having iconography that shows the status, this is not
done
robin: and having links to an explanation
vhardy: Simple icon, simple label
plh: If you go to HTML spec, it says "don't look at this one, look at editor's draft"
fantasai: How about the csswg ppl take an action item to create a proposal
robin: wrt transition, could have pubrules and pubrules2
plh: pubrules is costly to maintain
robin: I wrote patch for it once, took ages to figure it out
plh: ten years old mess
... Coming up with pubrules2 will take time
ted: If we have common format,
and all metadata added after
... we have more data bits per spec
... when comes time to produce it, all other stuff can be
generated
... pubrules2 can trust database, instead of checking
everything
... I imagine some people will want choices XHTML, HTML5,
whatever
plh: Didn't hear anyone saying pubrules should go away
fantasai: think what pubrules checks for is reasonable, given the format that we're requiring right now
plh: Talking with IanJ, who
created current pubrules
... He said we can do a lot of things, e.g. impose
link-checking only at REC phase
fantasai: I think requiring drafts on w3.org to be valid HTML is a good idea...
discussion of link checker
fantasai: runnng link checker catches lots of errors for me
robin: problem with link checker
is slow
... Only reason it's painful is it takes 15 minutes
???: Are we ok with using HTML5 on the website
<karl> http://search.cpan.org/dist/W3C-LinkChecker/
plh: we are very close, problem
is getting pubrules to accept it
... We will have some guidelines.
<karl> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/link-checker/
plh: e.g. should we allow things
that we know are a bit unstable
... will be able to accept ?, <section>
robin: JS shim for IE6?
plh: No, we won't write a checker for that. Just require ppl to ensure their document will work in all browsers, bc we can't check your JavaScript
ACTION fantasai and vhardy: create concrete proposal for a new and better spec template for W3C
robin: two things -- how and what
?: Not sure we can agree on format
robin: If we can pick two, and standardize, that should be enough
alexandre: I would like to require fragment URLs to point to specific features and other things to test
fantasai: Everyone has section headers. If your sections are granular enough, you can at least link to those. Can go more granular
plh: CSSWG should share wisdom of link tests from specs
<scribe> ACTION: fantasai to start best practices doc for editing specs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-pubs-minutes.html#action01]
fantasai: We link to fragment
ids, just like alexandres said. Currently using section
headings only.
... No special format for ids, except not auto-generated and
not section numbers so can be stable
<karl> For spec organization and quality http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/
<eliot> Thank you Karl
<dom> See http://www.w3.org/TR/test-methodology/ re marking up testable assertions or conformance requiremetns
Murray: Each clause with a MUST should have a span around that clause
robin: I agree with that, but getting editors to do that esp. manually is likely not to fly
Murray: I suggest to W3C that you need a Managing Editor. W3C is a publishing company, but you need someone who can take over all responsibility and manage all publishing. Not only system, but content. Someone people can turn to for guidance.
plh: IanJ was playing that role in the past
dom: Key is W3C products is documents, so we should have someone managing that
robin: In reSpec generated docs, each RFC2119 word is marked
dom: If you can identify your conformance requirements, makes it more testable.
robin: everyone should read dom's document
Murray: Sounds like the links are tested periodically
robin: at every publication
Murray: When I worked at SEO, we
transformed all our documents. Ran through everything, then
sent an email with link in it, for the author or editor
responsible to say which links are broken
... Motivated ppl to fix them b/c annoying
plh: Could run it over editor's draft
dom: Could make it optional.
Murray: You can put the pain earlier or later
dom: It's not just early you're proposing or often
Murray: Really worked for us. First iew weeks really hard, but after that ok
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.136 of Date: 2011/05/12 12:01:43 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/robin/dom/ Succeeded: s/?/karl/ Succeeded: s/HTML editor/editing HTML/ Succeeded: s/ties to .../ties to issues and bugs/ Succeeded: s/full URIs/fragment URLs/ Succeeded: s/???/Murray/ Found ScribeNick: fantasai Inferring Scribes: fantasai Present: betehess Dominique_Hazael-Massieux_W3C Bryan_Sullivan WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Got date from IRC log name: 02 Nov 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/11/02-pubs-minutes.html People with action items: fantasai WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]