W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sysapps@w3.org > October 2012

Re: WebIDL to Anolis source?

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:35:21 +0200
Message-ID: <50894E29.1050305@w3.org>
To: "Kis, Zoltan" <zoltan.kis@intel.com>
CC: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, Wonsuk Lee <wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com>, public-sysapps@w3.org
On 25/10/2012 14:52 , Kis, Zoltan wrote:
> In [1] Anolis is recommended for generating the specifications from a
> raw .src.html file.
> This would be fine, but one important step is missing: from me to the
> Anolis source. It is extremely inconvenient to write the Anolis
> src.html files in text editor. It is a total aberration and a crime
> against human eyes to write specifications like this, it's unreadable
> and needs many times more time to write, or find and correct
> something. For younger eyes this may be OK, but for me it's
> unbearable. Using ReSpec is better, but not by much.

If you have a workable, easily parsed syntax that can handle that 
embedded in HTML, then I can add support for that to ReSpec (at some 
point  I'm not committing to a deadline).

I also take patches, of course ;-)

If you're sticking with Anolis, then keep in mind that it's just a CLI 
processor tool. You can add other steps to the processing toolchain in 
order to pre-generate stuff that is then fed to it.

> Does anyone have a better solution to this problem?
> I can't believe everyone is writing source text for Anolis/W3C, so
> likely there is (?) a solution.

If people weren't happy with what they have they'd have written up a 
solution, but I don't know of any. Which isn't to say that there 
shouldn't be one :)

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 14:35:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 October 2012 14:35:28 GMT