- From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:32:21 +0000
- To: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- CC: <robin@w3.org>, <spec-prod@w3.org>
ok, I figured it out, no array. in case it helps anyone else, the correct syntax appears to be: var respecConfig = { specStatus: "FPWD-NOTE", localBiblio: { "FOO" : "something" }, localBiblio: { "BAR" : "something else"}, publishDate" "2012-11-11", ... regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Nov 9, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Hirsch Frederick (Nokia-CIC/Boston) wrote: > Robin > > I'm having trouble getting this to work. > > Is this now part of "http://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-common" ? > > does it matter where in respecConfig it goes (assume not). > > To be more precise, is the following correct? > > var respecConfig = { > specStatus: "FPWD-NOTE", > localBiblio: [ > { "FOO" : "something" }, > { "BAR" : "something else"} > ], > publishDate" "2012-11-11", > etc > > If anyone has used this, if there are any tips I'd appreciate hearing. > > thanks > > regards, Frederick > > Frederick Hirsch > Nokia > > > > On Oct 31, 2012, at 6:41 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> just a quick heads up since many people have asked for this: you can now define references specific to your spec in ReSpec (or override the ones in the biblio). Just add a "localBiblio" field to your config, and store as many { FOO: "..." } references as you want in there. >> >> Just a couple notes: >> >> - Please only use this when you have no alternative, either because sharing the reference makes no sense or because you're in a hurry (and will fix later). Otherwise we'll all lose the benefits of a shared references DB. >> >> - Those of you (you know who you are :) who are using pre-processing hacks to implement this, please remove them soon and use this instead. The reason for that is that all of those hacks hook in to internal functionality that *will* be changing. So it will break at some point. >> >> Other than that, share and enjoy! >> >> -- >> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon >> >
Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 17:32:59 UTC