W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Thoughts about future pubrules

From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:28:09 +0100
Message-ID: <4F9F03E9.2090004@nag.co.uk>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
CC: spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
On 30/04/2012 19:09, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> Regarding the rules themselves, a lot of them wouldn't have to be
> checked if we had a tool to generate the document for us (icon,
> copyright, previous version link, patent policy, etc.). So, we had a
> way for the editor to feed the data into the system, that would
> simplify life.

Aren't those some of the easiest boilerplate sections to add to a
document? Compared with link checking the document and checking that the
actual words make sense, automating that seems a very small thing, but
perhaps I'm missing something and these were just examples?

I've nothing against respec but personally I wouldn't want to use it.
Writing to a tightly controlled schema and producing final versions with
(highly customised) xmlspec stylesheets just seems a far more convenient
authoring environment than writing directly in html.

xmlspec can (and does) of course drop in copyright and other boilerplate
as required, so I'm not sure what additional features the proposed tools
would add?

Received on Monday, 30 April 2012 21:28:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:19 UTC