W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Removing XHTML saving from ReSpec?

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:46:27 +0100
Message-ID: <512CD8D3.4000605@w3.org>
To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
CC: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>, "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On 26/02/2013 15:35 , Michael Cooper wrote:
> Robin Berjon wrote:
>> For (1) there's Michael's objection that he likes to post-edit in an
>> XML editor. I'd love to hear about what kind of post-editing we're
>> talking about because the point is sort of that there shouldn't be any ;)
> There can be any number of reasons to need to post-edit the result of
> automatic generation. A couple that I've had to deal with recently on a
> repeated basis:
>
>  1. Respec outputs some weird attributes like 0="" which cause the
>     document not to validate and that weren't present in the source
>     document, so I have to remove those.

That's not something I've seen before and it's quite surprising 
(validity bugs tend to be immediately reported). Can you send me a spec 
that shows that error? If it's there it's a bug.

>  2. Respec puts a paragraph with public comment instructions in the
>     Status section that is not compatible with our process. I always
>     have to remove that; the correct instructions are in the custom
>     paragraphs I add to the status.

Can you send me examples with what you want? That seems like a feature 
others would use.

>  3. There are times I prefer to tweak aspects of the output like the
>     heading number format, or sometimes the TOC should go to a deeper
>     level for some sections than others (in particular, appendices
>     usually don't need the depth in the TOC that mainline sections do).
>     I don't expect it will be possible to predict and provide
>     configuration options for every scenario like this. We should just
>     always expect there there might be a need to edit the output.

Not everything can be supported, but there's already an option for ToC 
depth — I can look at making that controlled on a per-section basis.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 15:46:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 February 2013 15:46:36 GMT