W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2014

Re: Publishing a new WD of Clipboard API and events spec

From: Hallvord R. M. Steen <hsteen@mozilla.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 22:46:25 -0800 (PST)
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <627958797.8462623.1393829185232.JavaMail.zimbra@mozilla.com>
Thanks for the review and hints, Robin! I suppose it's better now? :)


Arthur: please start the process to publish a snapshot for this. There are 4 or 5 anolis-references left that I need to sort out (referencing stuff in dom/dom events that I just don't have time to look up right now, but I'll probably get it done before the snapshot is due). Haven't put in the right dates (this/previous..) either, but that's of course trivial.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
To: "Hallvord R. M. Steen" <hsteen@mozilla.com>
Cc: "Robin Berjon" <robin@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 11:15:20 PM
Subject: Re: Publishing a new WD of Clipboard API and events spec

On 2/28/14 7:59 AM, ext Hallvord R. M. Steen wrote:
> Well, for whatever reason I've ended up using both ReSpec and Anolis, the latter eventually only to add some cross-references which I haven't figured out if/how ReSpec can do.
> So yes, it is an "Anolis spec" but only sort of :-p

Hallvord - Robin looked at the source code (thanks Robin!) and he reported:

Looking at the source, this seems to me that it is 98% a ReSpec 
document, with a few Anolis things sprinkled on. I haven't pubruled it, 
but this looks like it would be at least pretty close to being a proper WD:


There are essentially two things that would ideally be fixed to make it 
ship cleanly:

• There are a few instances of <hN> elements that aren't in their own 
<section>. That's bad practice in general, and in the case of ReSpec it 
causes them not to be numbered and included in the ToC.
• At least one of those has a "This section is informative" bit 
included. That could be removed, and just add class=informative on its 
parent section.
• There are a few cases of data-anolis-spec=html. The best way to fix 
this is to have a section that says:

<p>The following items are defined in the HTML specification. [[!HTML5]]</p>
<li><dfn><a href='link to #feature'>foo</a></dfn></li>

and then for each instance, instead of <code 
data-anolis-spec='html'>foo</code> just use <a>foo</a>. There's an 
example of the same in:


I *think* that should be enough.

Based on Robin's info, it seems like the "right/best" way forward (in 
the long term) is to remove all of anolis and make it 100% ReSpec, 
although that would not necessarily need to be done before a new version 
of a WD is created.

In the short-term, perhaps the URL Robin gives above could be expanded a 
bit to create a draft WD:


And a Ctrl+Alt+Shift+S saved version of that could then be updated per 
the validators (<https://www.w3.org/wiki/Webapps/SpecEditing>) to create 
the WD for publishing.


-Thanks, Art
Received on Monday, 3 March 2014 06:46:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:28 UTC