Re: bikeshed (was: initializing working draft specs in github.com/webauthn?

On 03/08/2016 11:38 AM, Hodges, Jeff wrote:
> On 3/7/16, 10:14 PM, "Dirk Balfanz" <balfanz@google.com
> <mailto:balfanz@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     I wasn't planning on moving from respec to bikeshed.
>
>
> yeah, sorry, I'd talked with a few folks about doing that and hadn't
> circled around to you as yet -- one motivation is that the webappsec
> wg has moved all their specs from respec to bikeshed. others are that
> it eliminates the in-browser rendering -- it's a standalone
> preprocessor similar to xml2rfc, supports markdown and contiguous idl,
> etc. 
>
>     info is here: https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed 
>
>
> example makefile, input file (index.src.html) and output file
> (index.html) are here: 
>
>     https://github.com/w3c/webappsec-credential-management 
>
>
>     If we want to do that, maybe in a separate step?
>
>
> yeah, we could, tho conversion to bikeshed seems to eliminate a bunch
> of the html markup and JS in the spec files and thus may make a merge
> of the specs easier if done first, but either way works. 
>
> Also, note that the spec files in the repo..
>
>     /webauthn/webauthn-key-attestation/Overview.html
>
>     /webauthn/webauthn-signature-format/Overview.html
>
>     /webauthn/webauthn-web-api/Overview.html
>
>
> ..are all "rendered" ReSpec "output" files -- if you want to merge
> them as ReSpec, you may wish to do that using the ReSpec source files
> (for the W3C submission) which you may have copies of lying about, or
> Vijay or I have if you don't ( i rummaged around on my disk and
> managed to find copies..)

In general, as long as the editors have consensus, we'll go either way.
However, it would be good to have bikeshed/ReSpec settled before moving
the specs and publishing a unified Editors Draft on gh-pages.

  yours,
    harry

>
> HTH,
>
> =JeffH
>
>
>