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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Correcting Errata and adding Change Log #111

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Correcting Errata and adding Change Log #111

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

wareid
Copy link
Contributor

@wareid wareid commented Jan 19, 2022 •
edited by pr-preview bot
Loading

Correcting the errata raised in issues #109 and #108.

Added a note to the reading order section regarding the discussion raised in #110.

Added a change log section to track the changes made in this PR and any future changes.

💥 Error: 500 Internal Server Error 💥

PR Preview failed to build. (Last tried on Feb 16, 2022, 3:47 PM UTC).

More

PR Preview relies on a number of web services to run. There seems to be an issue with the following one:

🚨 Spec Generator - Spec Generator is the web service used to build specs that rely on ReSpec.

🔗 Related URL


😭  Sorry, there was an error generating the HTML. Please report this issue!
Specification: http://labs.w3.org/spec-generator/uploads/5a0xDG/index.html?isPreview=true&publishDate=2022-02-16
ReSpec version: 31.0.2
File a bug: https://github.com/w3c/respec/
Error: Error: Evaluation failed: Timeout: document.respec.ready didn't resolve in 29095ms.
    at ExecutionContext._evaluateInternal (/u/spec-generator/node_modules/puppeteer/lib/cjs/puppeteer/common/ExecutionContext.js:221:19)
    at runMicrotasks (<anonymous>)
    at processTicksAndRejections (node:internal/process/task_queues:96:5)
    at async ExecutionContext.evaluate (/u/spec-generator/node_modules/puppeteer/lib/cjs/puppeteer/common/ExecutionContext.js:110:16)
    at async generateHTML (/u/spec-generator/node_modules/respec/tools/respecDocWriter.js:221:12)
    at async toHTML (/u/spec-generator/node_modules/respec/tools/respecDocWriter.js:92:18)
    at async Object.generate [as respec] (file:///u/spec-generator/generators/respec.js:15:44)
    at async file:///u/spec-generator/server.js:228:48

If you don't have enough information above to solve the error by yourself (or to understand to which web service the error is related to, if any), please file an issue.

This was linked to issues Jan 19, 2022
duration property in JSON example uses incorrect syntax (number instead of ISO 8601 string format) #109
Open
Add note about the importance of adding the "duration" property to readingOrder items #108
Open
iherman
iherman requested changes Feb 2, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@iherman iherman left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The problem is that the change from SHOULD to MUST is a substantial change. If we go down the publishing line by publishing a candidate correction for a recommendation, then these changes must be marked up specifically for the relevant AC vote. See a somewhat similar change done for the Verifiable Credential in VC1.1 Proposed Amendments. I think it would be wise to do those editing right now, it would be difficult to do that later...

@mattgarrish
Copy link
Member

Is there documentation on how to make those edits? Looking at the source classes and cites, I still couldn't hack together a parallel.

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Feb 3, 2022

AFAIK, many things are buried in the scripts that respec adds to the document. I believe (to be tested) that "only" thing you have to do is to use the ins and del markup as in the example, plus the special classes for the preceding paragraph, and the rest should just work.

Cc to @marcoscaceres as the source of all knowledge on these things :-)

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

Sorry for the delay!

Process question: was the original Recommendation explicitly marked by the Working Group as an "updatable recommendation"?

Updatable Recommendations need to state the following in their SoTD:

Future updates to this Recommendation may incorporate new features.

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Member

About the how to mark things up, they are documented here:

https://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/2016/README#amendment

It's a bit of a nightmare, tbh. We are trying to get the process simplified... but it should be ok for this set of changes as they are only little.

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Feb 9, 2022

Process question: was the original Recommendation explicitly marked by the Working Group as an "updatable recommendation"?

Yes

About the how to mark things up, they are documented here:

w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/2016/README#amendment

It's a bit of a nightmare, tbh. We are trying to get the process simplified... but it should be ok for this set of changes as they are only little.

Thanks for this pointer. That resource is new to me, although I am an old-timer... ☹️

Cc @mattgarrish

This was referenced Feb 16, 2022
Closed
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@iherman iherman iherman requested changes

@mattgarrish mattgarrish Awaiting requested review from mattgarrish

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
4 participants
@wareid @mattgarrish @iherman @marcoscaceres