search

w3c / json-ld-api

JSON-LD 1.1 Processing Algorithms and API Specification
https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/
Other
77 stars 31 forks source link

Add candidate change and insertions relating to previously merged class-3 changes. #616

Closed gkellogg closed 1 month ago

gkellogg commented 1 month ago

for #380/#388, #514/#528, #565/#566. and #603/#606.

Reorganizes the change log with latest changes first. Comments out some entries in the change log which are class-1 or class-2 changes.

Preview | Diff

gkellogg commented 1 month ago

@iherman I tried to follow the form from EPub 3.3; please suggest ways to improve this.

In addition to other changes in the Project page, there are other comments in the Changes since 1.1 REC section that we'll probably need to investigate, but I want to get the basic form for such changes right.

iherman commented 1 month ago

Thanks @gkellogg, it looks good to me. I only have two minor comments:

  1. This may be an omission: the EPUB Status section highlights the candidate corrections' style much more visibly than what you have done. I think this should indeed be more visible.
  2. (This may be a matter of taste): the EPUB Changes section clearly separates the substantive changes. This may become very useful when you have to start a horizontal review on the candidate changes, for example.
gkellogg commented 1 month ago

Be commenting out all the editorial changes, we could remove the Changes since Proposed Recommendation Release of 7 May 2020 detail.

gkellogg commented 1 month ago

The last details entry in the change log appendix includes changes since REC. only the second one, which is the target of this PR, references the actual change block. I updates our changes section based on EPub.

iherman commented 1 month ago

The last details entry in the change log appendix includes changes since REC. only the second one, which is the target of this PR, references the actual change block. I updates our changes section based on EPub.

Oops, sorry! For some reasons I expected the entries being in a reverse chronological order:-) My bad.

gkellogg commented 1 month ago

Note that the PR-preview has a number of Respec issues: defined terms for which Respec fails to create a link (e.g. "active context" or "included blocks"), but this seems to be an artifact of PR-preview (I don't have the issue when I open this PR locally).

We'll need a separate pass to go through ReSpec issues, as it has changed its criteria since we last published.

gkellogg commented 1 month ago

Note that the PR-preview has a number of Respec issues: defined terms for which Respec fails to create a link (e.g. "active context" or "included blocks"), but this seems to be an artifact of PR-preview (I don't have the issue when I open this PR locally).

I believe the reason for this is that we include files that have the definitions, which PR-preview doesn't have access to, so they look like references to undefined definitions.