W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: References Re: What are the requirements/problems? Re: Working on New Styles for W3C Specifications

From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:37:08 +0900
Message-ID: <4EE7EFB4.6050106@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "chairs@w3.org" <chairs@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 2011/12/13 21:48, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-12-13 13:46, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> ...
>>> With the proper document source format, you can automate up-to-date
>>> changes, at least for W3C and IETF specs.
>>
>> Certainly, but someone has to create such a tool and provide the
>> references in a useable format. Last I checked, the W3C did provide
>> all the references in some weird and obscure format (RDF),

Please let's avoid such snide remarks between different groups of 
technologies in the W3C. For some people, RDF is weird, for others, it's 
way more natural than XML. Not everybody thinks the same way. And some 
(bravo to Robin) are actually ready to do a bit of work to get the 
format they prefer.

Apart from that, I have to say I'm also not happy with that RDF, but my 
main reason is that the order of the authors gets garbled.

>> though
>> looking at /TR/ right now, there is not even a link there anymore to
>> the RDF file. Much more helpful would be JSON or plain XML so it can
>> actually be parsed easily by off the shelf tools like Node.js and JQuery.

I think giving not only a specific programming language (JavaScript) as 
a requirement, but on top of that requiring specific libraries is going 
a bit too far. Other editors might want the same thing for Ruby on 
Rails, Drupal, Movable Type, or what not. Or maybe you just did that to 
provoke discussion :-).

Anyway, if you are okay to lower the requirement to just JavaScript, and 
are ready to do a search of two, you would quickly have come up with 
quite a few choices.

Regards,    Martin.
Received on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 00:40:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:18 GMT