#microformats 2016-07-06

2016-07-06 UTC
tantek_ and nitot joined the channel
nitot, tantek, gRegorLove, KevinMarks, KevinMarks_, KevinMarks__, KevinMarks___, MeanderingCode, Loqi, dogada and uf-wiki-visitor joined the channel
#
@Webprotech
Guide the #web #developer to implement microformats or #schemas for products and reviews. http://www.webpro.in/technical-seo-services/
(twitter.com/_/status/750598927368478724)
tantek, nitot, tantek_, KevinMarks, KevinMarks_, elux, adactio, Garbee, gRegorLove, TallTed, KartikPrabhu, M-RyanRix and miklb joined the channel
#
tantek
edited /microformats2-parsing (+330) "note stability in status section and explicit strict change policy per issues filed in response to implementation experience"
(view diff)
KartikPrabhu, nitot and gRegorLove_ joined the channel
#
@loicmathaud
@jkphl so this evening I hacked a bit on my site to add some microformats, it was HWC at home ;)
(twitter.com/_/status/750795742126759938)
tantek joined the channel
#
tantek
I have been asked by W3C to document how we have been raising, resolving, and making spec edits for microformats2-parsing issues.
#
tantek
Would appreciate some feedback on the proposal (even if just in the form of "thumbs up" reactions etc.)
#
tantek
!tell tommorris,gRegorLove,kylewm,willnorris,aaronpk,barnabywalters,bear,GWG,kevinmarks as someone who has participated in microformats2-parsing issue discussions / resolutions in the past year at least, could you offer your opinion, even if just a summary +1/0/-1 on my documenting of our existing rough processes here: https://github.com/microformats/microformats2-parsing/issues/1#issuecomment-230912142
#
Loqi
Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
#
tantek
hoping all that text fit
#
bear
loqi messages?
#
Loqi
bear: tantek left you a message 1 minute ago: as someone who has participated in microformats2-parsing issue discussions / resolutions in the past year at least, could you offer your opinion, even if just a summary +1/0/-1 on my documenting of our existing rough processes here: https://github.com/microformats/microformats2-parsing/issues/1#issuecomment-230912142
#
aaronpk
looks like it fit
#
Loqi
aaronpk: tantek left you a message 3 minutes ago: as someone who has participated in microformats2-parsing issue discussions / resolutions in the past year at least, could you offer your opinion, even if just a summary +1/0/-1 on my documenting of our existing rough processes here: https://github.com/microformats/microformats2-parsing/issues/1#issuecomment-230912142
#
bear
i'm +1 on your proposal - well written but concise - sets out proper expectations and responsibilities
#
tantek
just made a minor modification noting the the 1+ implementation requirement is only on aspects of a proposal that affect implementations
#
tantek
for example, proposals to document change control don't have anything themselves that should impact an implementation
#
bear
yes, lots of projects mistakenly mix process changes with implementation changes
#
tantek
figured it was good to make that distinction
#
bear
tantek++ for having clear change process language
#
Loqi
tantek has 302 karma
#
tantek
bear the intent is that there should be no surprises there
#
tantek
it should reflect our existing practices
#
bear
exactly
#
tantek
should I include something for minor editorial edits not needing issues and can be reviewed (and if necessary reverted) after the fact?
#
tantek
like for typos
#
tantek
I feel like there's been enough edits of that sort that it may be useful to point that out
#
aaronpk
probably, otherwise there's ambiguity in whether someone coming to the site is allowed to fix stuff like that
#
bear
that is a common call-out
#
bear
PR request for typos are ok as long as they don't change the structure or meaning of a sentance
KevinMarks_ joined the channel
#
bear
that ^^ will allow you to stop comma removal or the like
KevinMarks and nitot joined the channel
#
tantek
bear, something like
#
tantek
Purely editorial changes (e.g. fixing minor typos or punctuation) that do not change and preferably clarify the structure and existing intended meaning may be done by anyone without filing issues, requiring only a sufficient "Summary" description field entry for the edit. Similarly, questioning any such change may be undone without filing an issue. Any further reversion or iteration on such an editorial change must be follo
#
tantek
up by filing an issue however.
#
bear
I normally try to get revisions done as a PR tho
#
bear
as the urge to revert means a discussion needs to happen
#
bear
oops s/revisions/revert changes/
#
tantek
bear, I'm figuring that allowing both an initial editorial edit, and a reversion of it, is sufficiently conservative (i.e. it just returns to previous state) to allow without explicit process
#
bear
that's a good point - +1
#
tantek
however once that has occured, any further such iteration / change on that spot requires an issue
#
bear
nods
#
tantek
should stop edit wars before they start
#
tantek
thanks for the review bear
#
tantek
bear++
#
Loqi
bear has 150 karma
#
KevinMarks
That's good too.
#
Loqi
KevinMarks: tantek left you a message 35 minutes ago: as someone who has participated in microformats2-parsing issue discussions / resolutions in the past year at least, could you offer your opinion, even if just a summary +1/0/-1 on my documenting of our existing rough processes here: https://github.com/microformats/microformats2-parsing/issues/1#issuecomment-230912142
nitot, tantek, KevinMarks_, KevinMarks, KartikPrabhu and Loqi_ joined the channel