- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:03:02 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 29 April 2011 14:51, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > Thinking about it some more, I think respec is almost entirely > orthogonal to revdoc (my publication-from-the-wiki system); they overlap > in generating the boilerplate at the top of the document, but revdoc can > just overwrite respec's boilerplate if necessary, and rewrite the links > during publication as necessary as well. > > So, I think the real questions are: > > 1. Version control: CVS, Mercurial, or Wiki? So the basic w3.org website remains CVS-backed, as I understand it. For most group Web pages, the Wiki seems a reasonable alternative, especially for freeform / rough notes work. For the actual specs and test case repository, I'd like to give Mercurial a go. Can't claim to be an advocate but I'm quite liking using Git lately, and the two systems are similar (http://www.w3.org/blog/systeam/2010/06/16/why_we_chose_mercurial_as_our_dvcs/ ). > 2. Authoring format: Mediawiki markup, or HTML5-with-<sections>. This > includes how the bibliography is done. Is there a reasonable stable XHTML-friendly flavour of HTML5? Dan > I have no opinion, myself, on these questions. > > -- Sandro > > > >
Received on Friday, 29 April 2011 13:03:30 UTC