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

respec.js in IETF and W3C

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 19:51:21 -0700
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, "Bjoern Hoehrmann (derhoermi@gmx.net)" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>, "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr@cisco.com)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D194AE471CA@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
In particular, "respec" wasn't written by or managed by W3C staff. 

And I don't think either group is considering making the interim tooling (such as respect in W3C or xml2rfc in IETF) as mandatory-to-use tools, but rather standardizing on a (new) format standard, but insuring there is current tooling to support easy production of documents in that format.

-----Original Message-----
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljitsch@muada.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:25 AM
To: Larry Masinter
Cc: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] FW: IETF RFC format <-> W3C pubrules

On 8 May 2012, at 20:20 , Larry Masinter wrote:

> Here's a quick summary:

Thanks, I'll read up when I get a change. However:

> One of the tools is ReSpec.js  http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html which might be adaptable for IETF use.

Although it would seem to make sense for the two to work together, wouldn't it be a huge liability for both of them to depend on the other for something so crucial?
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 02:52:02 UTC

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