Re: IDL problem

On 19/09/2013 16:00 , Richard Ishida wrote:
> On 19/09/2013 13:43, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> No one is making you use it Richard :)
>
> But I *want* to use it. If it works, it's great. I guess I've just been
> particularly unlucky so far.

And to be clear, we want to learn from your unluck.

>> In this case you tried to use the output from Anolis as input to ReSpec.
>> That's a bit like printing a Word document to PDF then trying to
>> manipulate it as if it were HTML: you're going to have a bad time!
>
> That's not the problem, actually. The problem was that, although you did
> much excellent work on updating the documentation for respec, I was
> unable to find something that said "You must avoid using the class name
> 'idl' unless you use this structure for your data...", and had to try
> various things to work out that in fact that class name was where the
> issue originated. Even just a list of reserved class names in the
> documentation would probably be helpful. (I a problem once before with a
> different class name that produced a particular effect I wasn't
> expecting - i think it was 'req'.)

I have started documenting reserved class names and common problems, but 
the documentation, while much better than it used to be, remains 
incomplete. One of the big wins from the recent update was to make it 
more maintainable, which means that it can get regularly updated (I 
already have a target list of things to do).

Please file an issue at 
https://github.com/darobin/respec-docs/issues/new for this and any new 
documentation problem you encounter.

> The last time i tried to publish a doc we had The Case of the
> Disappearing Status Section.  That, i'd have thought, would have been
> easily apparent if the person who made the change had tried opening any
> document.  So I was wondering whether perhaps there's a process issue(?)

That's one of the regressions I was thinking about, and the post-mortem 
for that specific issue was documented:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2013JulSep/0096.html

It was an issue with the test suite when dealing with a combination of 
features, not a process issue.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 14:19:52 UTC