-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 134
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.
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
Extend the ability to publish Registries to IG/AB/TAG #972
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Tiny typo
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
index.bs
Outdated
@@ -4702,15 +4702,15 @@ Registry Definitions</h4> | |||
and which is responsible for evaluating whether such requests | |||
satisfy the criteria defined in the [=registry definition=]. | |||
|
|||
The [=custodian=] may be the [=Working Group=], the [=Team=], or a delegated entity. | |||
The [=custodian=] may be the initiating [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected group=], the [=Team=], or a delegated entity. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we can simplify this to "[=group=]", no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
[=group=]
on its own links to a definition that also includes the AC. I don't think the AC should be in the business of publishing anything
Co-authored-by: fantasai <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems like a reasonable improvement, and I agree with the replies from @frivoal to suggested changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me, have made suggestions to remove probably unnecessary wording.
index.bs
Outdated
[=Registries=] can be published by [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected groups=] either | ||
as a stand-alone [=technical report=] on the [=Registry Track=] called a <dfn>registry report</dfn>, | ||
or incorporated as part of a [=Recommendation=] as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>. | ||
or, in the case of [=Working Groups=], incorporated as part of a [=Recommendation=] as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This wording could be misunderstood to mean that chartered groups that are not Working Groups can publish registry reports, but that Working Groups can only incorporate them into Recommendations.
[=Registries=] can be published by [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected groups=] either | |
as a stand-alone [=technical report=] on the [=Registry Track=] called a <dfn>registry report</dfn>, | |
or incorporated as part of a [=Recommendation=] as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>. | |
or, in the case of [=Working Groups=], incorporated as part of a [=Recommendation=] as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>. | |
[=Registries=] can be published by [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected groups=] | |
as a stand-alone [=technical report=] on the [=Registry Track=] called a <dfn>registry report</dfn>. | |
[=Working Groups=] have an additional option to incorporate them as part of a [=Recommendation=], as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I like this option best. @fantasai , @TallTed , what do you think? I'd like to take this rephrasing instead of both https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/972/files#r1908141004 and https://github.com/w3c/process/pull/972/files#r1908141327
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Getting there. I suggest some tweaks --
[=Registries=] can be published by [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected groups=] either | |
as a stand-alone [=technical report=] on the [=Registry Track=] called a <dfn>registry report</dfn>, | |
or incorporated as part of a [=Recommendation=] as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>. | |
or, in the case of [=Working Groups=], incorporated as part of a [=Recommendation=] as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>. | |
A [=chartered group|chartered=] or [=elected group=] can publish a [=registry=] | |
as a stand-alone [=technical report=] on the [=Registry Track=], | |
where it is called a <dfn>registry report</dfn>. | |
[=Working Groups=] have the additional option of | |
incorporating a [=registry=] as part of a [=Recommendation=], | |
as an <dfn oldids="registry-section">embedded registry</dfn>. |
Co-authored-by: Nigel Megitt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Nigel Megitt <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Nigel Megitt <[email protected]>
See #902
Preview | Diff