W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2011

Re: publication infrastructure / respec

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:03:02 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTinC_j2ACi0cSwv=WL0vxzA=g0q+4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 29 April 2011 14:51, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> Thinking about it some more, I think respec is almost entirely
> orthogonal to revdoc (my publication-from-the-wiki system); they overlap
> in generating the boilerplate at the top of the document, but revdoc can
> just overwrite respec's boilerplate if necessary, and rewrite the links
> during publication as necessary as well.
>
> So, I think the real questions are:
>
> 1.  Version control: CVS, Mercurial, or Wiki?

So the basic w3.org website remains CVS-backed, as I understand it.
For most group Web pages, the Wiki seems a reasonable alternative,
especially for freeform / rough notes work.

For the actual specs and test case repository, I'd like to give
Mercurial a go. Can't claim to be an advocate but I'm quite liking
using Git lately, and the two systems are similar
(http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2010/06/16/why_we_chose_mercurial_as_our_dvcs/
).

> 2.  Authoring format: Mediawiki markup, or HTML5-with-<sections>.  This
> includes how the bibliography is done.

Is there a reasonable stable XHTML-friendly flavour of HTML5?

Dan

> I have no opinion, myself, on these questions.
>
>     -- Sandro
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 13:03:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:41 GMT