W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > August 2009

RE: Editing specifications with ReSpec.js

From: <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 17:10:59 +0200
Message-ID: <355A518BC0575547B2A3D6773AAF8EEF2BAAAD@ftrdmel1>
To: <marcosc@opera.com>, <jmcf@tid.es>
Cc: <robin@robineko.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
> JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA wrote:
> > Hi Robin,
> >
> > As you say and having some experience with this selecting 
> the format 
> > for writing the spec is very important and none of the existing 
> > formats are perfect. Particularly XMLSpec is evil :)
> >
> > The idea of using HTML 5 as an authoring format and use 
> scripting for generating the final content is interesting, 
> but what would happen if the user has disabled scripting in 
> the browser?
> >
> 
> As the W3C does not allow scripts in specs, I don't believe 
> respec is intended to be seen by the actual consumers/readers 
> of the specs. This is a tool that is used during the 
> drafting/authoring process. Once drafting is done, then the 
> generated markup is copied to a separate spec that is 
> officially published.
> 
> 

Agree with Marcos. Any output of ReSpec.js should be saved statically
(minus scripting) before publication. I agree that Javascript is a good
authoring system though - quite accessible and debuggable to the widest
audience. This should apply to all types of spec drafts and if that
output process could be automated (?) then even better. Is this what you
had in mind Robin?

Summarising the problems: with JS I can't rely on a.) it being enabled
in the browser, b.) element markup rendering correctly across all
browsers c.) when saving the spec for offline reading, whether the JS
files remain attached (w/ HTML5 offline apps - probably. Relying on JS
being always attached in all other cases - probably not).

Without static documentation I can just see myself distributing the spec
links and people missing e.g. the header info.. which could lead to all
kinds of problems.

Thanks, Rich 
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 15:23:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:38 UTC