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

Re: Mercurial repository layout

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 13:46:17 +0100
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B218730C-2B8B-4EDD-88BB-AB52A2764A02@cyganiak.de>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 2 Jun 2011, at 11:25, Ivan Herman wrote:
> My worry would be to have then some sort of a parallel set of scripts which, on long term, would then deviate from ReSpec.js as used by other working groups.

I wouldn't be too worried about this for several reasons:

1. ReSpec.js is not rocket science; it's all quite simple

2. Just two of the files are likely to change: respec.js and biblio.js. Merging changes from the official version every few months is a matter of minutes

3. ReSpec is used in spec production, but not part of the published specs; so using a deviating version isn't really a problem

4. I'd suggest that we use a shared copy within this WG, so it's not like *everyone* has their own version.

> Do you also want to copy the full bibliography file? That is actively maintained by people all the time...

Yes. I'm simply using a complete local copy of ReSpec.js, which includes the bibliography file. I had to add two or three references to it for RDF Concepts, everything else was already in there. This was all extremely simple compared to maintaining a bibliography by hand.

> I see the point of working off-line although, in truth, if you are off line you can still edit and see your file, the only point is that it is not formatted as a W3C TR.

It has not TOC, no references, no front matter, no status section, ... If you use ReSpec, then you really want it available when working on the spec.

>> I also made a local addition to ReSpec to be able to list the previous editors of a document. This was very easy -- extending ReSpec seems to be very straightforward. I asked on the spec-prod list about contributing this back to the official ReSpec version, but didn't get a reply yet.
> 
> I wonder whether those additions could be made by the extension tricks ReSpec already have; we could then have our own local add-ons in javascript but keeping to the centrally-maintained one.

The ReSpec documentation doesn't describe any extension mechanisms, and the change isn't specific to RDF-WG but seems useful in general.

Best,
Richard
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 12:46:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:44 GMT