W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-testsuite@w3.org > December 2012

Update to structure

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:31:37 +0100
Message-ID: <50C85D09.6050800@w3.org>
To: public-html-testsuite@w3.org
Hi all,

I've carried out an update to the directory structure as per the call. 
Here are the things that have changed:

 Everything in IDs that isn't [a-z0-9-] gets replaced with a -, after 
lowercasing (there's one uppercase ID in the spec). Additionally, I 
replace consecutive - with a single one, and drop them from the start 
and end of IDs.

 Whenever the ID needed to be changed, I dump a small JSON file called 
original-id.json in that file. It can be used to map back to the ID. 
JSON's overkill, but it's free.

 We now have: html, canvas2d, and microdata as directories. Versions 
will be layered through branches.

 I've included the script that does all this in the tools directory. It 
should now run anywhere. Be careful though, at this point it is still 
very destructive. When we've settled and moved stuff over I'll make it 
so that it is only additive.

I haven't made branches yet since there's nothing concrete to do with 
them. But can we try to resolve that before next week's call? I think it 
would be good to start 2013 without having to worry about all this 
bikeshedding, and between now and then the content also needs to be 
moved to the new structure.

Since branch naming really is a bikeshedding issue maybe we could just 
entrust it to a poll and call it a day? I'm happy to set that up if it 
means we spend less time picking the shed's colour.

Likewise it would be good to make a decision on GitHub ASAP since that's 
essentially blocking all the new set up.

One interesting thing that surfaced at the meetup I was at last night: 
even *designers* use GitHub. They were raving about the documentation, 
notably http://try.github.com/ that apparently got them all off the 
ground in 15 minutes.

In full honesty, and without cheekiness, here's how I see the GitHub 

Homegrown                 | GitHub
Have data                 | Sync data
Time consuming setup      | Free
Requires maintenance      | Free
Requires learning         | Everyone knows it
Requires writing docs     | Stellar documentation exists
No community whatsoever   | Huge community of the right people
Ugly                      | OK
Painful to use            | Usable and improving
Requires evangelism       | People already there
New rules and conventions | Existing, shared, known usage
NIH Syndrome              | Off the shelf

In fact I have yet to hear a single argument against using GitHub. Has 
anyone made one that I've missed?

Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 10:31:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:49:46 UTC