Re: xmlspec.xsl and diffspec.xsl

I'm okay with your recommendations, but I wouldn't know how
to get copies of the files next time I need to create a spec
given that the only place they exist right now is within
http://www.w3.org/XML/2013/07/xinclude-11/

Can we pick some place, whether it is in
http://www.w3.org/2002/xmlspec/
or someplace like http://www.w3.org/XML/2013/xmlspec-xsl/,
where you put what you are using for XInclude 1.1 so that
we'll know where to go to get the files next time we want
to create a document.

paul


On 2013-07-25 07:28, Norman Walsh wrote:
>  From the agenda:
>
>      xmlspec.xsl and diffspec.xsl
>      ----------------------------
>      Paul sent email about this at
>      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012Nov/0014
>
>      ACTION to Norm:  Come up with (and implement) a plan to
>      reorganize xmlspec.xsl and diffspec.xsl to "do the right thing."
>
>  From 2012Nov/0014:
>
>> I gather that it's diffspec.xsl that should be used
>> for styling both the diff and non-diff version (with a
>> different setting of a global parameter).
> Right. If diff markup has been introduced, xmlspec.xsl does the wrong
> thing because it simply ignores the diff markup.
>
>> If so, then
>> why do we have xmlspec.xsl as it stands now at all?
> Because when I started to introduce support for diff markup, I was
> trying to do so without changing xmlspec.xsl because it was used by
> several specs and I didn't want to break anything.
>
>> I still want to be able to have an xml-stylesheet PI
>> in the XML pointing to xmlspec.xsl, but then why don't
>> we replace xmlspec.xsl either with a copy of diffspec.xsl
>> with show.diff.markup=0 or with a two liner consisting of
>> show.diff.markup=0 and import diffspec.xsl?
> I think that's the easiest thing to do and I have done so for the
> XInclude 1.1 document. I don't *think* it will have any consequences.
>
>> I believe our current practice is to put a copy of both
>> xmlspec.xsl and diffspec.xsl into the same directory as
>> the XML and the two HTMLs.  Is this the best practice,
>> or should we be writing the xml-stylesheet PI with an
>> absolute path that points to the appropriate thing in
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/xmlspec/ ?
> Best Practice would be to have a common place, versioned, where
> different specs could reuse the code and benefit from bug fixes. The
> practical reality is that I no longer have the time or inclination to
> maintain http://www.w3.org/2002/xmlspec/ and no one else involved in
> the specprod alias at W3C cares. They've all switched over to some
> HTML/JavaScript thing because That's Better(TM).
>
> It's also possible that with Google deprecating XSLT support in their
> fork of WebKit, there's diminishing value in even bothering to include
> the stylesheet PI. But maybe I'm just feeling depressed. :-)
>
> I think keeping local copies with the specs is the pragmatic thing.
>
> I assert that this completes my action.
>
>                                          Be seeing you,
>                                            norm
>

Received on Monday, 29 July 2013 14:06:49 UTC