-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
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
New section on environmental impacts #27
Merged
Merged
Changes from 52 commits
Commits
Show all changes
53 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
850d182
chore: new section on envrionmental impacts
mprorock c7355c9
correct spelling
mprorock 7e4093e
correct spelling
mprorock eb86210
spelling
mprorock 7561e14
spelling
mprorock 29e2d39
chore: updates to include explicit refs to the Ethic web principles
mprorock b508dbb
chore: update some language around proof of work
mprorock c961d1f
chore: clean up formating and order of section 7
mprorock cbb379b
Update index.html to correct spelling and spacing
mprorock 78abe49
chore: update language to remove specifics around proof of work that …
mprorock a1e9ee4
chore: further language updates
mprorock 1e8fce6
chore: spelling error
mprorock 2fb6306
chore: removed unecessary reference to a ledger approach
mprorock 5fe1f17
language improvement
mprorock 3064e2f
language improvement
mprorock d65ed98
language improvement
mprorock 4820791
formatting
mprorock b13b97a
language clarifications
mprorock 22c6943
grammar
mprorock 90d6e16
chore: update and add some clarifying language
mprorock e4b620c
chore: some minor language mods
mprorock a0a3a10
Revert "chore: some minor language mods"
mprorock 0fa5901
Revert "chore: update and add some clarifying language"
mprorock 6c798be
Update language around appropriate use of tech
mprorock 93870c3
language improvement
mprorock 02317a8
language improvement
mprorock 5528479
chore: add text to reflect that new section is view of some mebergs o…
mprorock f578a20
chore: cleanup
mprorock 23a2273
Merge branch 'feature/environmental' of github.com:mesur-io/did-imp-g…
mprorock 989686b
chore: update structure to group items in env section related to view…
mprorock 3839b6c
chore: spelling fix
mprorock 1174832
language clarifications
mprorock 6f51ec9
language improvement
mprorock 06a563a
language improvement
mprorock 67b5c83
spelling
mprorock 9053df0
chore: pull two use cases to PR over to use case doc
mprorock a476381
Merge branch 'feature/environmental' of github.com:mesur-io/did-imp-g…
mprorock b0d199f
clarify wording
mprorock 34b7d3a
chore: remove non-normative language based on repeated objections fro…
mprorock f5b3c95
Update index.html
mprorock 6bf9c01
Update index.html
mprorock 2ee868d
language improvement
mprorock 2d82297
tag formatting
mprorock 1310b0c
language improvement for clarity
mprorock 2e296c1
Improved language
mprorock 35e8147
Improved language
mprorock 171176c
Update to section heading in response to comment from ChristopherA
mprorock bfe1e39
chore: adjust section and subsection headers
mprorock 961c3cf
chore: update language in section headings
mprorock e046d08
chore: update to remove section on potential trade offs based on use …
mprorock b2f7768
update to correct grammar and clarify
mprorock 4e2b768
add clear language related to additional use of existing infrastructure
mprorock eee9e0c
chore: remove link to PR against rubric to add environmental criteria
mprorock File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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 doubt it is appropriate to cite a PR to another document within the implementation guide.
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.
it's pretty common to cite issues or PRs when work is in progress, as a way on unblocking work. We've done this a few times in did core if you prefer to cite an issue instead of the PR, we can make that change.... for example:
https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/blob/main/index.html#L1061
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'd agree if we were earlier in the publication process, but this is now a published note, so its not really a "work in progress" as much as, say, the current VC-API spec.
Seems to me, if we want to point to specifics in the Rubric, we should point to published criteria, and if necessary, keep issues open in the implementation guide repo until we get good criteria added to the Rubric.
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.
my point is that its bad form to object to adding a link to an open issue / PR, as a mechanism for making progress on a contentious issue... we make progress incrementally, sometimes that acknowledges that issues remain open... For example:
w3ctag/design-principles#338
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-principles/issues/339
w3ctag/design-principles#239
Could all be cited since they are all relevant to the imp guide, and all remain unresolved.
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.
@OR13 any issue in pulling the PR reference as this issue paragraph will go away soon enough with just a pointer to the rubric?
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 don't have any issues merging PRs... git tracks the history of all changes and all comments.
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.
@jandrieu -- The published NOTE is a static document, which does not and will not include the reference to the PR on another document. There's nothing wrong with such a reference in an Editor's Draft, on one of which all these current PRs are focused, and from which all such references would be removed before it were published as an updated NOTE.
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.
@TallTed As I understand it, echidna now automatically publishes updates to the document. So, all PRs merged get published.
In short, I don't believe this is an editor's draft any longer.
Maybe @iherman can correct me if I'm wrong.
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 remains unresolved. IMO, a published W3C doc should not point a pull request.