- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:46:30 -0600
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- CC: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Is this some new convention that is being encouraged by pubs? I wouldn't want to codify anything that would fall afoul of 'pubrules'. On 1/20/2011 3:43 PM, Doug Schepers wrote: > Hi, Robin- > > Thanks for the update. I'm using v1 for the new Web Events drafts, > but look forward to v2. > > May I suggest that you add top links for Editor's Draft and Public > Comments, as well? > > Here's an example (though not using ReSpec): > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/DOM-Level-3-Events/html/DOM3-Events.html > > > Regards- > -Doug Schepers > W3C Team Contact, SVG, WebApps, and Web Events WGs > > > Robin Berjon wrote (on 1/20/11 10:39 AM): >> Hi all! >> >> I've been making quite a few changes to ReSpec v2 recently (as those >> who get the commit emails will have noticed). The good news is that I >> think we're close to a beta. The bad news is that if you had thrown >> caution to the wind and were already using v2, these changes will >> break your code (sorry, but alpha really means alpha). >> >> The first change concerns the plugin system, and a new feature called >> profiles. ReSpec v2 is essentially a lot of little plugins that >> process the document in order, each making its own small changes, >> very much like a Unix shell with lots of pipes (which was indeed the >> inspiration). Previously you had to list all the plugins you wanted >> in order, but that was annoying since for a given document type (say, >> a W3C specification) you pretty much always want the same. To extend >> the metaphor, profiles are like shell scripts, they capture the list >> and order of plugins to run. Right now there's just one — w3c-common >> — but there are more on the way. >> >> That's not all profiles can do. They also alleviate the >> loading-from-local-disk problem. As browser tighten up their >> security, it becomes decreasingly possible to load resources from >> file:. This is an annoyance because we don't want to force users to >> have to set up a Web server — ReSpec should just be a vanilla HTML >> document into which you add a script — but we wanted to be able to >> have dependencies such as templates. Thanks to RequireJS, profiles >> can be compiled, a process that not only makes everything neat and >> small but also folds in resources in such a way as to make them >> readily available. End users won't have to compile anything of >> course, that's for ReSpec developers (it also makes it easier for us >> to make "releases" so that all the documents in W3C that use ReSpec >> don't break at once whenever someone commits something stupid, as is >> currently the case with v1). >> >> The plugins that used external resources have been updated to make >> use of this facility. The exception is core/data-include (since its >> resources are dynamic). That means that it will probably only be >> usable in limited circumstances or when developing from a web server. >> That's probably okay though since I don't believe that it is used >> much (I've never used it myself, Shane might have a different idea >> though :). >> >> Note that this change means that v2 now works in Firefox, Opera, >> Safari, and Chrome (I haven't tested IE yet because I'm too lazy to >> watch Windows load in the VM, but I'll get around to it). >> >> Developers who don't want to waste their time compiling profiles >> every time they make a change during development can use a trick >> similar to the one in profiles/w3c-common-loader which loads the >> compiled profile when your document is from file: and the individual >> plugins and resources separately when in http:. Also, look at >> build/build-w3c-common.sh for the command that's needed to build a >> profile. >> >> Another breaking change is that I've reverted the configuration to >> rely on a global object as in v1. It's simpler, and it works better >> with profiles. The test document that shows how it works is in >> test-spec/webidl.html. >> >> The way bibliographical references are done has changed as well. They >> are now defined and loaded as RequireJS modules. This is cleaner, >> simpler, and works a lot better than the previous approach. It also >> opens the door to a more distributed way of handling references (for >> details follow the hand-waving). We need to think more about that >> though. >> >> Things to do before beta include: >> >> - a tiny amount of things to port from v1 (in case you haven't seen >> Gregg ported WebIDL which was the big one) - at least some skeletal >> documentation, I hope to get on to that next - more tests, even if >> not complete - checking that it's not completely broken on IE >> >> Thoughts, feedback, etc. welcome! >> > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2011 21:47:09 UTC