Re: New HTML5 spec-editing tools released

I think this is really great, Manu. However, I think it needs the mode 
where only the new stuff is provided. That is, content that is 
identical to the main spec is just not really a factor is evaluating 
added or revised, or changed material. I think the main button for 
showing candidate text should be that just the new/revised is shown. I 
can always look at the most up to date official draft in another 
window. Really, it is challenging enough just to generate candidate 
text and graphics without having to concern a potential contributor 
with generating the entire spec.

Although it may not be as automated, please see the candidate review 
package for some of the embedded objects
"Re: HTML WG Issue tracker ACTION-131 Draft ALT spec"
http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/HTML5/img.html
Redraft of sub sections '4.8.1 The figure element' and '4.8.2 The img 
element'
and
http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/HTML5/textalternatives.html
Best practice techniques: Providing text alternatives for images

in which, essentially, only the replacement text is shown. That may be 
an old way to do it, but it provides focus for the reviewer who is 
familiar with the rest of the document. Then, when the candidate is 
approved, if everything ishooked in, the editors might well choose to 
use the process you describe here to publish a complete current draft.

Thanks and Best Regards,
Joe





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
To: "WHATWG" <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>; "HTMLWG WG" 
<public-html@w3.org>
Cc: "RDFa Developers" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 8:39 AM
Subject: New HTML5 spec-editing tools released


> The newest version of the microsection spec-editing tools have been 
> made
> available:
>
> http://wiki.github.com/html5/spec
>
> These tools, microsplit and microjoin, are capable of:
>
> * Taking Ian's latest HTML5 spec as an input document and splitting 
> it
>  up into microsections.
> * Re-mixing, removing and adding microsections specified from 
> another
>  source (for example: RDFa, John Foliot's summary suggestions, etc.)
> * Producing one or more output specifications (such as Ian's HTML5 
> spec,
>  HTML5-rdfa, HTML5-johnfoliot-summary, etc.)
>
> This process:
>
> * Does not impact Ian's current editing workflow.
> * Empowers additional editors to modify the HTML5 specification 
> without
>  stomping on each other's changes.
> * Enables alternate HTML5 specifications to be authored while
>  automatically updating the alternates with Ian's spec changes.
> * Is currently used to produce the HTML5+RDFa specification.
> * Provides a mechanism that can be used to generate specification
>  language that is specific, and that can be used to form consensus
>  around the HTML5 specification at the W3C.
> * Enables thoughtful and well-mannered dissent.
>
> There is even a pretty picture that describes the workflow:
>
> http://wiki.github.com/html5/spec
>
> Anyone is free to clone the repository, use the tools, generate
> remixed/updated/altered specifications and propose them as 
> alternatives.
>
> I am seeking thoughts and suggestions about these tools - how they 
> might
> help or hinder, as well as improvements that should be considered.
>
> -- manu
>
> -- 
> Manu Sporny
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/
>

Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 22:03:34 UTC