W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: IDL problem

From: Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:17:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOk_reEF=ZMLHW_cEDFmpNu0GCD3WyM7NGBVeVEeJkNnfn0Knw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:19 UTC