W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: ReSpec 2 changes

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:46:30 -0600
Message-ID: <4D38AD36.7010309@aptest.com>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Is this some new convention that is being encouraged by pubs?  I 
wouldn't want to codify anything that would fall afoul of 'pubrules'.

On 1/20/2011 3:43 PM, Doug Schepers wrote:
> Hi, Robin-
>
> Thanks for the update.  I'm using v1 for the new Web Events drafts, 
> but look forward to v2.
>
> May I suggest that you add top links for Editor's Draft and Public 
> Comments, as well?
>
> Here's an example (though not using ReSpec):
>   http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html
>
>
> Regards-
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG, WebApps, and Web Events WGs
>
>
> Robin Berjon wrote (on 1/20/11 10:39 AM):
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I've been making quite a few changes to ReSpec v2 recently (as those
>> who get the commit emails will have noticed). The good news is that I
>> think we're close to a beta. The bad news is that if you had thrown
>> caution to the wind and were already using v2, these changes will
>> break your code (sorry, but alpha really means alpha).
>>
>> The first change concerns the plugin system, and a new feature called
>> profiles. ReSpec v2 is essentially a lot of little plugins that
>> process the document in order, each making its own small changes,
>> very much like a Unix shell with lots of pipes (which was indeed the
>> inspiration). Previously you had to list all the plugins you wanted
>> in order, but that was annoying since for a given document type (say,
>> a W3C specification) you pretty much always want the same. To extend
>> the metaphor, profiles are like shell scripts, they capture the list
>> and order of plugins to run. Right now there's just one — w3c-common
>> — but there are more on the way.
>>
>> That's not all profiles can do. They also alleviate the
>> loading-from-local-disk problem. As browser tighten up their
>> security, it becomes decreasingly possible to load resources from
>> file:. This is an annoyance because we don't want to force users to
>> have to set up a Web server — ReSpec should just be a vanilla HTML
>> document into which you add a script — but we wanted to be able to
>> have dependencies such as templates. Thanks to RequireJS, profiles
>> can be compiled, a process that not only makes everything neat and
>> small but also folds in resources in such a way as to make them
>> readily available. End users won't have to compile anything of
>> course, that's for ReSpec developers (it also makes it easier for us
>> to make "releases" so that all the documents in W3C that use ReSpec
>> don't break at once whenever someone commits something stupid, as is
>> currently the case with v1).
>>
>> The plugins that used external resources have been updated to make
>> use of this facility. The exception is core/data-include (since its
>> resources are dynamic). That means that it will probably only be
>> usable in limited circumstances or when developing from a web server.
>> That's probably okay though since I don't believe that it is used
>> much (I've never used it myself, Shane might have a different idea
>> though :).
>>
>> Note that this change means that v2 now works in Firefox, Opera,
>> Safari, and Chrome (I haven't tested IE yet because I'm too lazy to
>> watch Windows load in the VM, but I'll get around to it).
>>
>> Developers who don't want to waste their time compiling profiles
>> every time they make a change during development can use a trick
>> similar to the one in profiles/w3c-common-loader which loads the
>> compiled profile when your document is from file: and the individual
>> plugins and resources separately when in http:. Also, look at
>> build/build-w3c-common.sh for the command that's needed to build a
>> profile.
>>
>> Another breaking change is that I've reverted the configuration to
>> rely on a global object as in v1. It's simpler, and it works better
>> with profiles. The test document that shows how it works is in
>> test-spec/webidl.html.
>>
>> The way bibliographical references are done has changed as well. They
>> are now defined and loaded as RequireJS modules. This is cleaner,
>> simpler, and works a lot better than the previous approach. It also
>> opens the door to a more distributed way of handling references (for
>> details follow the hand-waving). We need to think more about that
>> though.
>>
>> Things to do before beta include:
>>
>> - a tiny amount of things to port from v1 (in case you haven't seen
>> Gregg ported WebIDL which was the big one) - at least some skeletal
>> documentation, I hope to get on to that next - more tests, even if
>> not complete - checking that it's not completely broken on IE
>>
>> Thoughts, feedback, etc. welcome!
>>
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:47:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:17 GMT