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

Re: Mercurial repository layout

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 17:32:14 +0200
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <66E9891D-D443-4953-9E04-E38F7FBB880F@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Richard,

my starting point is: whatever is good for the editors should be good for me. I am still not convinced that having our private copy of the script is necessary (the RDFa WG has worked with respec.js for almost two years now without doing this) and useful but, again, I do not feel like really arguing over that, not being an editor...

Ivan

On Jun 2, 2011, at 14:46 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> 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


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2011 15:29:49 GMT

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