Re: ISSUE-95 Discussions

Holger,


On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote:

>> 2. As I said, we should move towards Javascript and ReSpec for this
>> purpose. Furthermore, the source code for any generator must be
>> checked in to the w3c repo so that . Using Javascript and ReSpec simplifies the process.
>
>
> Why is this a MUST? As long as we have some workable process to produce the
> new HTML file until the end of the WG, we should be fine. As I said in
> another email, I think the current XSLT doesn't make use of extra
> information from the shape definitions, which would be a wasted opportunity.
>

As I stated: so "any present or future editor can regenerate the
HTML". This means whatever tool we use, it MUST be available to anyone
who is working on the spec. It MUST also be possible to improve the
formatting as required. Simple script formats like XSLT or Javascript
are ideal because they are text files and anyone can modify them to
improve the formatting. No need for a complex compile/build process
like for Java. W3C is an Open organization so specifications should
not depend on proprietary tools, especially when suitable Open Source
technologies are available.

I assume your tool is written in Java. I think that makes the process
more complex than necessary. However, if you seriously want to propose
it, then can't you extract just the source code needed and contribute
that?

The XSLT script was checked in to GitHub and we can easily modify it.
Recall that this what W3C intended XSLT to do. However, I think
Javascript and ReSpec are more suitable in this day and age. Of
course, this means more development effort so maybe tweaking the XSLT
isn't so bad.

-- Arthur

Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2016 18:18:38 UTC