Re: pubrules and ReSpec

On 10/22/2013 09:15 AM, Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> Sandro:
> I'm afraid I don't like this answer!
> If W3C is pushing ReSpec 

I don't think W3C is pushing ReSpec.    You may recall at the start of 
this WG, we talked about a variety of ways documents could be prepared, 
and of the lot, this group picked ReSpec.   I think Eric personally 
prefers xmlspec, and I'm kind of a fan of publishing from mediawiki 
(although it's a pain, too).

I think pretty much all W3C spec writers prefer ReSpec now, so it's 
becoming the de facto standard, but not by fiat.

> shouldn't ReSpec generated documents automatically pass pubrules
> as long as the HTML and Links are correct?   Doing this extra strep is 
> a pain.

There's a fundamental architectural problem here: respec uses 
specialized HTML and JS to make it easy to author specs.    But we don't 
want to publish our specs as specialized HTML that requires JS to make 
it readable.  So there has to be a transformation step.

Arguably, that transformation could/should be more automated and the 
whole publication process should be much easier.   For years I've been 
pushing for this.   But making publication easier seems to not be a very 
big priority at W3C, alas.

(What I'd like to see is a control panel at the top of drafts where 
people can give mini reviews, wg members can vote, and authorized folks 
can actually just press a button to have it be published.)

        -- Sandro

>
> All the best, Ashok
> On 10/22/2013 7:49 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> On 10/22/2013 06:39 AM, Steve Battle wrote:
>>> Does anyone have experience experience with pubrules?
>>>
>>> I’ve done the best I can to make UC&R compatible with pubrules, but it
>>> doesn’t appear to be strictly compatible with ReSpec which 
>>> auto-generates
>>> a lot of the content that pubrules complains is missing.
>>>
>>> Does the ReSpec script have to be compiled out somehow?
>>
>> Yes.   See 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Tips_on_publishing_ReSpec-based_documents
>> for how it's done in RDF-WG.     There's also respec2html if you want 
>> command-line, but it has its own complexity.
>>
>>> Also, should I change specStatus before making the request to the
>>> webmaster, or does the document in mercurial remain the editors 
>>> draft? The
>>> status is currently “ED” for Editors Draft,
>>
>> Make the saved pure-HTML one be WD, and keep the respec one ED.
>>> and what _is_ the code for
>>> second call working draft?
>>
>> Sorry, do you mean second last call?   The code for that is the same 
>> as last call.   The fact that it's the second one isn't something the 
>> system/process cares about.
>>
>>         -- Sandro
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If nobody knows, I'll send what I have to the webmaster.
>>> Regards, Steve.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Steve Battle
>>> Semantic Engineer
>>>
>>> Mobile: +44 (0)7503 624 613
>>> Landline: +44 (0)1173 709 678
>>> E-mail: steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk
>>> Web: www.sysemia.com
>>>
>>> Sysemia Limited
>>> The Innovation Centre, Bristol & Bath Science Park, Dirac Crescent,
>>> Emerson's Green, Bristol BS16 7FR Registered in England and Wales. 
>>> Company
>>> Number: 7555456
>>>
>>> DISCLAIMER
>>> Information contained in this e-mail is intended for the use of the
>>> addressee only, and is confidential and may also be privileged. If you
>>> receive this message in error, please advise us immediately. If you are
>>> not the intended recipient(s), please note that any form of 
>>> distribution,
>>> copying or use of this communication or the information in it is 
>>> strictly
>>> prohibited and may be unlawful. Attachments to this e-mail may contain
>>> software viruses which may damage your systems. Sysemia Ltd have taken
>>> reasonable steps to minimise this risk, but we advise that any 
>>> attachments
>>> are virus checked before they are opened.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 13:32:16 UTC