Re: Second JS bulk upload

I know everybody is currently against it, but I wish we could keep the
"Requirements" section separately somehow, in order to reuse it within the
Compatibility Tables project, for features/methods/properties/functions
that have no compatibility information. While they are Internet Explorer
specific - it is better than having no information at all.


☆*PhistucK*


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote:

> Way to go, Max! That resolves everything, right? Does this mean you¹ll 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.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>