Turning editors into contributor section

[himorin]

As title, along with URL redirect fix.

@kidayasuo @xfq @r12a see middle part (lines 104-147 in new column). Do we have any other item to be mentioned here?

[himorin]

ah, just followed another spec I've working on, but no personal preference,,, e.g. https://www.w3.org/TR/webxr/#ack seeking others, mostly without affiliation for acknowledgments, removed them.

My feeling is that we should also acknowledge that the organisations involved allowed the individuals to work on this, which is the main reason for keeping the affiliation information.

If so, I would rather keep former format with combination of name and affiliation.
With writing separately something like we appreciate contributions of following organizations: xxx, additional meaning than affiliation could be included, and it is quite hard to check history over 20 years. We may ask Binn-sensei about any contribution, of course...

[r12a]

keep former format with combination of name and affiliation

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I was suggesting that we just add the affiliation (the one currently in the document's front matter) after the name in parens. But it's only a suggestion. If you prefer to leave as is, that's ok too.

[himorin]

added 67940e4 per https://www.w3.org/2025/02/27-i18n-minutes.html#f79e

[r12a]

If i remember correctly, we used the div markup here to avoid warning messages about using a section with no heading. You might want to check that out.

[kidayasuo]

The change looks good. Thank you!

[macnmm]

should include this @kidayasuo

[kidayasuo]

Thank you for spotting this.
Yes, please add Nat. He contributed to the English translations as an editor.

[kidayasuo]

Thank you. The change looks good.

[himorin]

memo from 2025-03-11 JL-TF call, @kidayasuo will contact xfq and Richard about how to organize both editor field and contributors section.

[xfq]

This PR seems to have problems after @deniak force pushed the gh-pages branch, and commits cannot be displayed correctly. Maybe we can close and reopen a new PR?

[himorin]

@xfq per Feb/Mar JL-TF call, @kidayasuo as a chair gained and keeps a ball to write some note and proposal, so I'd defer to @kidayasuo to find a way which he prefers or thinks easy to work with.
but I don't quite understand why touching image resources would affect to index.html and script.js as making conflict. If force push changed something on these two files, itself might be an issue??

[xfq]

I don't quite understand why touching image resources would affect to index.html and script.js as making conflict. If force push changed something on these two files, itself might be an issue??

@deniak Do you know why?

[deniak]

I don't quite understand why touching image resources would affect to index.html and script.js as making conflict. If force push changed something on these two files, itself might be an issue??

@deniak Do you know why?

I think the issue is that the PR comes from @himorin's fork which still has the git LFS references. So the fork needs to be updated or the PR needs to be created directly from w3c/jlreq.

[xfq]

Any progress from @himorin @kidayasuo?

[kidayasuo]

Ah, I have to decide who will be on the Editors list. Thank you for the heads up. I will reply in a few days.

[r12a]

Looking at the conflicts and large number of files changed, i suggest that we close this PR and create a new one with the actual proposed changes.