Re: Editing specifications with ReSpec.js

Hi there,

2009/8/6 Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>:
> one of the annoying decisions one has to make when editing a specification
> is which tool to use to generate the final, PubRules compliant HTML.
>
> I don't intend to impose a solution on this — it is up to editors to decide
> collectively — but I would like to suggest my favourite option: ReSpec.js.
>
> Its chief advantage is that it does not require running any external tool,
> one simply edits an HTML document according to some conventions, reloads it
> in the browser, and voilà. It also has built-in support for WebIDL, which'll
> come in handy for us. Unless you hit a bug it should provide you with
> PubRules compliant HTML very easily (the checker complains about a couple
> small things, but I would think that they're wrong).
>
> I won't bend your ear longer than necessary here, you can read more about it
> at:
>
>  http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html
>
> and in general poke around http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/ to see what
> it's made of.

Why editing HTML at all? I'd propose to write specs in plain
markdown[1] and add some additional pre- or post-filters to it, in
order to generate PubRules compliant HTML. In contrast to HTML,
markdown aims at being readable in source and gives an idea about
WYSIWYM -- it can be extended with rfc2119 style keywords -- and even
your ReSpec.js could be integrated during the generator run.

Various decent wiki systems like ikiwiki or werc rely on markdown
nowadays as well.

[1] http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/

Kind regards,
Anselm

Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 10:42:07 UTC