W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Second JS bulk upload

From: Julee <julee@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 22:41:11 -0800
To: Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com>, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
CC: List WebPlatform public <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CEC40DF7.A2C84%julee@adobe.com>
Way to go, Max! That resolves everything, right? Does this mean youšll do
one more test in the test space and then the official import? J


----------------------------
julee@adobe.com
@adobejulee





-----Original Message-----
From: Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 10:10 PM
To: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
Cc: WebPlatform Public List <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Second JS bulk upload

>On 12/3/2013 8:58 PM, Eliot Graff wrote:
>> ... [Max: are we keeping IE specific content?] ...
>>
>> Decidedly not. When we donated the content, we knew that there would be
>>Microsoft-specific remarks that would have to be stripped out for
>>browser-agnostic use. This is a prime example of that kind of content.
>
>Done.  It looks like by simply removing the "Requirements" section
>completely it does the right thing.  To prove that's true, here's the
>difference in the page content, file by file.  The less-than signs at
>the beginning mean those lines were removed:
>
>     http://pastebin.com/C3ditHyJ
>
>Note the repetition and how there's no accidental extra stuff mistakenly
>being removed.
>
>It was a little script (http://is.gd/7xnLFf) to edit all the files by
>rewriting the whole thing, section by section (including the unnamed top
>content), and if the section name was "Requirements" just don't write
>that section.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 06:41:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:56 UTC