- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 11:41:41 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <ACA094A2-EE74-4843-AA37-FE26253B1EF7@3roundstones.com>
Thanks for the help, Peter and Markus. I have created a static version and checked it in. However, the document previously validated using the W3C Markup Validation Service but the static version created from ReSpec shows 81 errors. Speaking as a volunteer with too little time available, this frustrates me greatly. Am I expected to clean these up by hand? Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood On Jul 4, 2013, at 05:43, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > See > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Tips_on_publishing_ReSpec-based_documents > for the process. > > That document is a bit inscrutable in one spot. Respec has a special process that is triggered by cntrl-alt-shift-S which produces a non-respec version of the document that you can then copy and paste into a text editor and then put into the drafts area. Warning: this triggering is somewhat fragile, it happened for me only about 1/4 of the time I tried the incantation. > > peter > > On 07/03/2013 07:35 PM, David Wood wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Several of you have offered to help get Concepts ready with respect to Pubrules. Thanks. It looks like I'll need it. >> >> Can someone please tell me how to get the Pubrules checker to understand that ReSpec has actually provided most of what it is complaining about? Do I need to export the doc somehow? >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> -- >> http://about.me/david_wood >> >> >> >
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 15:42:04 UTC