Re: Comment Tracker

Thank you very much, Phil. I have just added this two and it is working now.

Comment LC-3007 
<https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3007>: 
vocabulary versioning 1: 
https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3007

Comment LC-3008 
<https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3008>: 
preservation 1: 
https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/3008


Kind regards,
Caroline



On 26/03/15 12:58, Phil Archer wrote:
> OK, I've done some digging and I *think* we have a working tracker.
>
> I think the problem was that I included spaces in the short name of 
> the doc thinking it was just a text field (it isn't).
>
> So, I have started all over again. You can follow the link from the 
> wiki menu bar to
> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/ where you'll now 
> see a list of two documents with the same name. Ignore the first - 
> that's the old one that doesn't work.
>
> The second one, which I have linked directly from the wiki at
> https://www.w3.org/2013/dwbp/wiki/Main_Page#Best_Practices
> seems like it might work. The new list is at
>
> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/WD-dwbp-20150224/
>
> There you'll see 4 comments in the tracker, the three from Andrea and 
> DanBri's.
>
> Can you try adding another, presumably Herbert van Stompel's and see 
> if it works for you?
>
> If so then we're up and running...
>
> Phil.
>
> On 26/03/2015 14:47, Caroline Burle wrote:
>> Dear Phil,
>>
>> Bernadette, Newton and I are trying to include the comments in the
>> Comment Tracker, but we are having some trouble with the tool.
>>
>> We think the main problem is that the tool is not linking the BP
>> Document with the comments. Furthermore, at first it would appear all
>> the sections of the BP document on "Section of the document concerned",
>> now it does not appear anymore. Finally, we added 4 comments[1-4] that
>> are shown together when we click to "View Comments"[5], but the comment
>> you have posted before is not there.
>>
>> Could you help us with it?
>>
>> Thank you! Kind regards,
>> Caroline
>>
>> [1] LC-2998 
>> <https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/BP/2998>
>> [2] LC-3000 
>> <https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/BP/3000>
>> [3] LC-2999 
>> <https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/BP/2999>
>> [4] LC-3001 
>> <https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/BP/3001>
>> [5] https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/BP/
>>
>> On 13/03/15 09:35, Phil Archer wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I took an action item last week to look into options for tracking
>>> comments. As a follow up, and with help from my colleague Dom, I've
>>> configured a comment tracking tool we have, see [1].
>>>
>>> For each comment received, someone, usually a document editor, adds
>>> the comment to the system, referring to the comment's URL from the
>>> mail archive. They should classify the comment as one of
>>>
>>> substantive
>>> editorial
>>> typo
>>> question
>>> general comment
>>> undefined (try not to use this one)
>>>
>>> There may be more than one comment per e-mail. I have loaded an
>>> example [2].
>>>
>>> The WG can then review each comment and record its resolution (all of
>>> which is part of the public archive of course).
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>> Phil.
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/
>>> [2] 
>>> https://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/68239/BP%20Doc%20FPWD/
>>>
>>> For Tracker: This is ACTION-142
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>