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 18:11:05 +0200
Message-ID: <355A518BC0575547B2A3D6773AAF8EEF2BAADF@ftrdmel1>
To: <marcosc@opera.com>
Cc: <robin@robineko.com>, <jmcf@tid.es>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 5:57 PM, 
> <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:
> >> On Aug 6, 2009, at 17:16 , 
> <richard.tibbett@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:
> >> > My previous email crossed with yours, Robin :(
> >>
> >> Such is the internet!
> >>
> >> > So now I understand the process I would still suggest that
> >> the specs
> >> > minus JS applies to all drafts too.
> >>
> >> You mean Editor's Drafts too? I think that would encourage 
> people to 
> >> not commit as often as they should, which is IMHO a bad 
> idea. The ED 
> >> drafts are mostly to help the WG work and communicate with its 
> >> community. Whenever there's a big difference between the 
> ED and the 
> >> latest published WD a new publication should be made in order to 
> >> reach a wider audience (you know, publish early, publish often ;).
> >>
> >
> > OK. Early and often is good and I agree automated snapshots will be 
> > difficult initially.
> >
> > Perhaps then ReSpec.js could check the browser environment on 
> > initialisation. If it fails whatever we need (e.g. it's not a 
> > supported/tested browser or e.g., Javascript is currently disabled) 
> > then it would leave a big red div at the top of the page 
> stating that 
> > 'this page is not rendering correctly...' and possibly why e.g. 
> > 'you're using
> > IE6 and we only support these browser + versions...' or 'you must 
> > enable javascript'.
> >
> > Could be useful. Obviously, any snapshots generated and 
> this info gets 
> > removed (assuming the snapshots are created from a suitable 
> browser).
> >
> > I'm happy to add and play about with this in the ReSpec.js 
> if it's of 
> > interest.
> 
> Although useful, I don't think this is necessary. The CVS 
> server can be configured to always serve the "cooked" version 
> of the spec. This is how we work in Web Apps (raw= 
> Overview.src.html, cooked = Overview.html). It is very rare 
> the anyone but the editor sees the "raw" version of a spec 
> (no pun intended).

This was primarilly intended for Early drafts and/or Editor's drafts,
which as I understood, Robin did not want to snapshot (or "cook") before
display to the DAP working group.

If we are always serving the cooked versions of Early Drafts and/or
Editor's drafts then forget this suggestion :-)
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 16:12:07 UTC

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