search

w3c / charter-drafts

Draft W3C WG and CG charters for public review
https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/charter-template.html
46 stars 63 forks source link

[template] Consistent markup between the charter template and the deliverables tool #385

Open svgeesus opened 2 years ago

svgeesus commented 2 years ago

The charter template uses a definition list, with one dt per normative specification:

<dt id="web-foo" class="spec"><a href="#">Web <i class="todo">[spec name]</i></a></dt>
            <dd>
              <p>This specification defines <i class="todo">[concrete description]</i>.</p>

              <p class="draft-status"><b>Draft state:</b> <i class="todo">[No draft | <a href="#">Use Cases and Requirements</a> | <a href="#">Editor's Draft</a> | <a href="#">Member Submission</a> | <a href="#">Adopted from WG/CG Foo</a> | <a href="#">Working Draft</a>]</i></p>
              <p class="milestone"><b>Expected completion:</b> <i class="todo">[Q1–4 yyyy]</i></p>

The (Team-only) deliverables tool, for example https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/audio/deliverables uses a li per normative specification. All the info is there but it requires tedious copy and paste to put the infor from the tool into the form expected by the template

<li id='3147' class='spec'>
                            <a href='https://www.w3.org/TR/audioproc/' rel='versionof'>Audio Processing API</a></li>
                        <ul>
                            <li>Latest publication: <a href='https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-audioproc-20111215/'>2011-12-15</a></li>
                            <li>Exclusion Draft:
                                <a href='https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-audioproc-20111215/'>https://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-audioproc-20111215/</a></li>
                            <li>associated <a href='https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-cfe/2011Dec/0019.html'> Call for Exclusion</a>
                                on 2011-12-15
                                                                    ended on 2012-05-13
                                                            </li>

It would be much more convenient and less error prone if the tool generated the exact markup required for the charter section.

svgeesus commented 5 months ago

It isn't clear who wrote the tool, or where the source is. Should I contact sysreq to ask about it?

I have also in the past tried pasting the output of the tool into a charter, but there was (reasonable) pushback since the deliverables list was not using the markup in the charter template.

Updating the tool to generate the correct markup seems the way forward, therefore.