Re: ISSUE-95 Discussions

As long as we only produce the RDFS file anyway (see ISSUE-122) I am 
fine with something like the current XSL. We do have our own technology 
for generating SHACL documentation at TopQuadrant which would have been 
useful for a Shapes file, but we could not make that open source either.

We should however not be in a situation in which the specific XSL 
enforces constraints on the structure of the RDFS file, i.e. extra 
triples or prefixes just needed for code generation need to be kept (and 
merged in) separately.

Holger


On 10/02/2016 4:18, Arthur Ryman wrote:
> 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 Thursday, 11 February 2016 00:20:55 UTC