- From: Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:17:21 -0500
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOk_reEF=ZMLHW_cEDFmpNu0GCD3WyM7NGBVeVEeJkNnfn0Knw@mail.gmail.com>
Robin, Checking the input for common errors seems like it would have a big upside. I will take a shot at it. I may start a new dissuasion thread where people can suggest things to look for. On Sep 19, 2013 7:43 AM, "Robin Berjon" <robin@w3.org> wrote: > On 18/09/2013 18:09 , Richard Ishida wrote: > >> PS: I'm really starting to wonder whether I should reconsider using >> respec. It's so brittle! The last three documents I've tried to publish >> would have been published *much* faster if I'd just used a text editor. >> Do we have adequate tests in place, and are they used after people >> tweak the code? >> > > No one is making you use it Richard :) > > In this case you tried to use the output from Anolis as input to ReSpec. > That's a bit like printing a Word document to PDF then trying to manipulate > it as if it were HTML: you're going to have a bad time! > > The test suite can of course be improved but it catches a lot of issues > already. As far as I know we've only had two or three regressions over the > ~40 releases that shipped in the past 12 months. > > What it does not do at this stage is linting and validation of the input > content. It might have caught your mistake (I guess it could detect output > documents and the presence of Anolis markers). It's on the todo list, but > it's a bit of work so unlikely to happen super soon unless someone jumps on > it. > > -- > Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon > >
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 13:17:49 UTC