- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:54:23 +0100
- To: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Cc: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Hi, On Mar 24, 2011, at 13:09 , Erik Dahlstrom wrote: > On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:20:34 +0100, Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org> wrote: > However, it still makes sense to be able to generate a publish version (or equivalent) locally, so I'm not saying get rid of that, just make the server do some of the work for us. > >> I want to vastly simplify the setup required to be able to work on the spec. >> Amongst other things I'm working on a new build script that will eliminate the >> need for cygwin. > > Just please say it's not perl-based :) FWIW, I'm not sure what exact requirements you have for your spec tool, but I'd be happy to provide support for using ReSpec with this. It's JS (so no Perl :) and it's used by quite a few groups nowadays. It certainly uses the approach you seem to be advocating of requiring a (form of) build step only when making a TR publication. The one big thing that comes to mind that it doesn't support that SVG would likely need is multi-document specifications, but if we can bang out some requirements of how you'd like that to be handled it's something I'd be happy to hack in support for. I might be missing some other requirements though, I haven't touched the SVG build tools in ages. v2 is pretty much usable now, I've been using it on personal projects without trouble for a while. It's in hg too. Just my few pimping cents! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 13:54:56 UTC