See also: IRC log
<Lachy> ScribeNick: Lachy
<plh> http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/
<plh> http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/#(1)
<betehess> scribenick: betehess
plh: this is about the future of
#TR
... not about the process itself
... only about /TR pages
... and how to publish stuff there
... not about new style either
Lachy: so this exlucdes stuff re: WD, LC, etc.
steeve: actually, I'll be happy to talk about that after the session
<cygri> Richard Cyganiak, DERI
Alexandre Bertails, W3C Systems Team
plh: my goal is to get
feedback
... identify what we need to do
... go away if you don't know what /TR is
<SteveZ> SteveZ is Steve Zilles
plh: http://www.w3.org/TR/ is the
canonical URL
... this has evolved over time
<Josh_Soref> THE FUTURE OF /TR
plh: list technologies, status, date, title, etc.
<Josh_Soref> WHAT'S FOR TODAY?
<Josh_Soref> WHAT'S /TR?
plh: provides several views to access specs
<Josh_Soref> WHAT'S /TR?
plh: Submissions are not there, like other docs
<annevk> Feedback: in the Netherlands the last name "Van Kesteren" is sorted using K, not V
plh: the W3C publication process is a bit complex
<annevk> (Probably easier to sort on first name.)
plh: reflects the w3c
process
... sometimes you need to ask permission for transitions.
... then you ask the webmaster for actual publication
... he can say no at any point if doc is not ready
... the webmaster also deals with the comm-team
... to make sure they are ready
... then he interacts with very old back-end
... then it's finally published
... in the meantime, the comm-team does announcements
... eg. twitter, the AC, etc.
... may depend on the kind of document as well
... as an editor, it's not easy
<Josh_Soref> PUBLICATION PROCESS AS OF TODAY (SIMPLIFIED)
<Josh_Soref> WHAT'S IN /TR?
plh: I'll focus on informations
in /TR
... "this version" is immutable
... a link to the doc itself
... "latest version"
... "previous version"
... and now, new stuff, like "editor's draft"
... (not required)
<Josh_Soref> WHO USES /TR?
plh: who uses /TR, the web
page?
... do you go through this page to find stuff?
... or maybe a search engine?
... what about webdevs?
... and sometimes, you want to know about other resources
... my question: do you use it? how? why? if not, why?
Lachy: I use Google
... just easier
... I usually don't know what I'm looking for
... there are too much informations on the webpage
<sandro> Lachy: Sometimes I know the shortname, sometimes it's in my browser history
@@: also dev.w3.org
scribe: because I want the latest editor's draft
<sandro> hsivonen: I add site:dev.w3.org if I what the ED.
Lachy: depending on the spec, I may want the latest draft, or something in /TR
Travis: some years ago, I was
going to /TR
... to see waht was done
... as I didn't know the spec
... don't do that anymore
... I want to have the latest version
<sandro> Travis: I want the ED, so I dont use /TR
vivia: if I want to find
information, I use google
... but sometimes people point me to the editor's draft
david: I used to use the /TR page
as a summary
... but can't find things in there anymore
<sandro> +1 dbaron I stopped using /TR when it became dynamic
david: stop using it
... too dynamic
... so I'm using google now
pl: I don't use /TR either
dom: I use it sometimes
chaals: I use Yandex now
:-)
... when I use it, it's when I want to give people a link to a
handful of specs
... like an overview
... and for history stuff
... I can see things by date order
... and I point people there when they have questions
<sandro> chaals: one use is to point people at the progress of a group, or a set of related specs
chaals: eg. they want the REC version if there is one
plh: what about HTML?
chaals: depends on the issue
<sandro> chaals: I used autocomplete for the URL for the HTML5 draft
chaals: most of the time, it's
dev
... sometimes /TR version
<SimonSapin> (I use the single page HTML spec as a crash-test)
doug: some people told they
always use editor'ED for tests
... also, we have more ED than REC from the beginning
cygri: I've used it twice in my
life
... to find what other specs where using RDF
<annevk> More feedback: lots of people don't know what "TR" means
cygri: but still hard to figure
out where the information is
... can't find the right categories
... 2nd time, when I had to publish a FPWD, I had to find some
extra information, like the group
darobin: I use for one
thing
... I'd really like a separate version of this page for
ED
... machine readable, not RDF please
fantasai: it's not useful at
all
... not sure we need a separate page
... it should be only about ED
steeve: if I'm a user, do I want
that?
... things may be inconsistent
... people in this room are talking to a particular
audience
... the audience is probably not the people in this room
doug: developers should not read the specs
<annevk> angry mob
fantasai: would to clarify
... speaking about the version the WG considers the people
should look at is on /TR
... for other WG, this is different
<sandro> +1 fantasai: the version on TR should always be the version the WG thinks people should be looking at
<Josh_Soref> [ applause ]
fantasai: we should be able to point people at where the WG thinks they should look at
<Josh_Soref> /TR GOALS
plh: /TR is only for snapshots
*today*
... (approved by WG)
... other possibility, the latest version could be the thing
that could be modified at will
... but when I'm in LC, which one should I look at?
... things can be moving
sandro: we could point people at the snapshot, not the latest version
plinss if it's the LC, it cannot be a moving target
scribe: people should not look at it
marcos: what's LC for?
plinss the process
marcos: does not have to be the
stable doc
... only the lawyers need that
steeve: two uses for LC
<dbaron> annevk: You don't want to get the same feedback multiple times when it's been fixed.
steeve: 1. is for patent
reviews
... to see what can apply
... requires stable doc
<sandro> +1 annevk: If part of the comments are already addressed in the ED, you don't want people looking at the old text.
2. is for people to have something to review
scribe: and make comments
... they are interested in the conclusion
... not the moving thing
... snapshots are intended for people not in this room
<annevk> hmm
ArnaudLH: wasting our time
... people should be given the choice
... we should be telling people the right thing
... we just not choose for them
... should be easy
<sandro> +1 ArnaudLH just provide all the information, and let people pick which version(s) they want to see
hsivonen: don't think it's only
for lawyers
... if you write a comment, just look in the spec if it's still
accurate
... you can remove your comment
... so snapshots are not useful
... if you give choice, there is a risk that they'll read the
wrong one
marcos: we can look at the
evidence
... it's never been outside of the community
<sandro> hsivonen: If you give people a choice, then you run the risk that New Hires will read the wrong one
marcos: I bet that comments are always coming from the community
dbaron: @ArnaudLH giving people
the choice, URLs are passed around, and people may be pointed
to the wrong spec
... but I agree, we should be able to give the option
... but people link to the specs all the time
... @Henry, there is more value in snap than for lawyers
<sandro> that sounds like a small matter of programming
dbaron: when reading/writting
comments for specs
... as I want to point to a specific version of the spec
... wants to speak about a specific paragraph
robin: don't think that snap are
only for lawyers
... I get feedback for implementors
... so snapshot are useful
... I like the idea we have to generate several versions
<annevk> Snapshots don't have any better stability in terms of feature review...
<annevk> You need annotations for feature stability
robin: we could make it so we detect if we have a fresher version of the spec
Lachy: to dbaron re: linking to specific version, revision number from VCS in the URL is enough
<Marcos> +q
Lachy: @SteveZ ... as an
implementor, we have different people working on different
sections of the spec
... does not matter if it's LC for them, it's not
relevant
... in this case we ignore the fact it's LC
SteveZ: I accept the comment re:
LC doe snot mean it's not finished
... but in this case, could mean that you're not really in
LC
... specs are primarly for implementors
... so the URL should be the most useful to them
... could be reasonable to provide URLs to derivative
... still, we should provide snapshots for people who want
them
doug: the specs are hard, not for newbies
<timeless> scribe: timeless
Travis: thinking about fantasai's
place
... having a place which is semi private
<sandro> "development branch"
fantasai: a place where i can discuss on the ML
Travis: a place where she can
have implementers try it out
... we've made ED ....
darobin: half baked, confused
Marcos: i'd like to rename LC to
Lawyer-Call instead of Last-Call
... if we're always in a state of receiving comments
annevk: we can keep "LC"
darobin: some groups should randomly go to REC
jgraham: if you want a private
scratch place
... it sounds like you should use branches in VCS
sandro: i've always wanted to
make publishing a WD a one-click
... so ED appears on TR as a WD
... maybe Editors or Chairs clicks that button
plh: nice transition to my next slide
fantasai: i'd probably like to push all typo fixes and similar fixes *immediately* to TR
<sandro> with "minor changes" check box
plinss you want the "minor changes" checkbox
fantasai: checked by
default
... in the CSS WG
... the process of requesting a publication from
resolution
... causes people who were procrastinating to look at this
NOW
... so there are aspects of publishing a snapshot for every
change
... i want /TR up to date enough that people don't feel the
need to look at my scratch
<sandro> maybe "editorial changes"
darobin: +1
<Josh_Soref> PUBLICATION PROCESS
plh: is the current process
painful for you?
... is pubrules painful?
[ laughter ]
plh: referring to sandro
... how often
... i've heard w/in 5 minutes
ashok: i work w/ other SDOs
... I work w/ OSS
... UMTF
... with those guys, you author a document
... in Word, PDF
... and upload it
... with W3
... it takes me as long to publish as it takes to write it
[ laughter ]
ashok: i can't publish what i
edit
... it has to go through what i process
... there's this CVS business
... why is this that difficult?
wilhelm: at the current
stage
... webdriver is in
... i want a commit hook
... editor commits
... we never use /TR
... what's there is wrong
dbaron: i'd like to offer some data
plinss: 1000010000
[ laughter ]
dbaron: longest period of time
from a WG Resolution to publish a doc on TR
... to actual publication is 86 days
... only the ones i've been involved in
... Apr 24, 2007, to July 19, 2007
... the longest in the past 6 months is 50 days
... Aug 1, 2012 to Sept 20, 2012
... WG Res to Publication
... this is not abnormal
<dom> [what were the causes of the delays, though?]
ArnaudLH: i think pubrules are
not too painful
... i'd like to publish as often as i'd want
... i want to completely control publication
... not have to try to get team contact/webteam/sysadmin
... i want a button
... make it happen in a few minutes
SimonPieters: my comment is the
same as everyone else
... publication process should be completely automated
doug: so should the authoring process
Lachy: re pubrules
... it requires a lot of edits to update the little
things
... to go up a stage
... i have to change stylesheet, link to previous
... that takes a lot of time
... updating SoD
darobin: are you using
Anolis?
... that's not a tool
Lachy: manual edits is
annoying
... should be able to say Spec @ Level - Go
plh: not many of us use /TR
... since it became dynamic
... want to find latest version agreed by WG
... some mixed opinions, but WG agreed latest ver is the one to
show
... dbaron mentioned link which is flexible to recipient
<dom> [ReSpec is one possible part of the solution to the problem "we want to automate publication"; that doesn't invalidate the expression of the need]
plh: one click button
fantasai: commit hook
plh: i'll stop
SteveZ: announcements only w/ identified major revisions
<dbaron> ... not with publications
Josh_Soref: and if there's some final minor update to a major version (HTML4.01) it should have a publication announcement
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137 of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/WD</WD,/ Succeeded: s/don't/don't know/ Succeeded: s/y S. T/y_S_T/ Succeeded: s/d B/d_B/ Succeeded: s/+/Present+ / Succeeded: s|http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/#(1)|-> http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/#(1) THE FUTURE OF /TR| Succeeded: s|http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/#(2)|-> http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/#(2) WHAT'S FOR TODAY?| Succeeded: s|http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/#(3)|-> http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/#(3) WHAT'S /TR?| Succeeded: s|http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/#(4)|-> http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/#(4) WHAT'S /TR?| Succeeded: s|http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/#(5)|-> http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/#(5) PUBLICATION PROCESS AS OF TODAY (SIMPLIFIED)| Succeeded: s|http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/#(6)|-> http://www.w3.org/2012/Talks/1031-tr-plh/#(6) WHAT'S IN /TR?| Succeeded: s/Topic: Future of W3C publishing process (// Succeeded: s/dont'/don't/ Succeeded: s/RRSAgent: make logs public// Succeeded: s/RRSAgent: make minutes// Succeeded: s/+ Alexandre Bertails/+ Alexandre_Bertails/ Succeeded: s/Hiroki Yamada/Hiroki_Yamada/ Succeeded: s/Ted Guild/Ted_Guild/ Succeeded: s/divya and anne/divya, anne/ Succeeded: s/Yoshiaki Fukami/Yoshiaki_Fukami/ Succeeded: i|I use Google|Topic: Who uses /TR Succeeded: s/robin:/darobin:/ Succeeded: s/fantaisi/fantasai/ Succeeded: s/people/developers/ Succeeded: s/fantaisi:/fantasai:/G Succeeded: s/asia/asai/ Succeeded: s/@@:/PeterL:/ Succeeded: s/@@/hsivonen/ Succeeded: s/acn/can/ Succeeded: s/@@/dbaron/ Succeeded: s/features/feature/ Succeeded: s/david/dbaron/ Succeeded: s/as/@SteveZ ... as/ Succeeded: s/steeve/SteveZ/ Succeeded: s/onlny/only/ Succeeded: s/thiink/think/ Succeeded: s/Anolys/Anolis/ FAILED: s/Anolys/Anolis/ Succeeded: s/PeterL:/plinss/g Succeeded: s/peterl:/plinss/g Succeeded: s|s/Anolys/Anolis/|| Succeeded: s/RRSAgent: make minutes// WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <timeless> ... Found ScribeNick: Lachy Found ScribeNick: betehess Found Scribe: timeless Inferring ScribeNick: timeless ScribeNicks: Lachy, betehess, timeless Present: Simon_Pieters Alexandre_Bertails jgraham Lachy Hiroki_Yamada Travis_Leithead Ted_Guild divya anne Stefan_Hakansson Yoshiaki_Fukami Dominique_Hazael-Massieux Josh_Soref Henry_S_Thompson David_Baron Steve_Zilles SandroHawke Tobie_Langel Richard_Cyganiak Peter_Linss Koichi_Takagi Doug_Schepers Lea_Verou Robin_Berjon Elika_Etemad(fantasai) Odin_Hørthe_Omdal Marcos_Caceres Anssi_Kostiainen Ashok_Malhotra Arnaud_Le_Hors Anthony_Mirabella Erika_Navara Rik_Cabanier Simon_Sapin Got date from IRC log name: 31 Oct 2012 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/10/31-tr-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]