Re: ReSpec toolchain...

what if I want to put my spec on my ereader in ePub format? (and I do want to do that for ease of reading).

This is another argument for allowing plain non-scripted HTML, to avoid Javascript implementation differences, reader limitations etc. Reason is not technical but user need.

So far we seem to have reasons for HTML without scripting:

stability, portability and wider distribution
accessibility
performance
non-dependeny on changing interfaces or servers that might be down
ePub or other offline reader usage that does not use ‘latest’ 

against this is 
‘advocacy for the dynamic web’ :)

I’m not sure I understand the issue. Why not have both if the editor is willing to generate the HTML? (no reason to remove ReSpec code is there?)

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch, Nokia
@fjhirsch



On Jul 14, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On July 14, 2014 at 3:25:35 PM, Shane McCarron (shane@aptest.com) wrote:
>>> I would oppose any movement toward allowing formal W3C specification  
>> publications to be dynamically generated in the client.
> 
> Wait! that's like arguing that all specs should only be printed on paper because computers have moving parts that can break down. Or because the network can sometime return you a 404. 
> 
> The web is a *software platform* - it's not a thing to copy dead trees. What you are opposing to is essentially the Web's fundamental features - and goes against the whole point of the W3C (to standardize a *software platform*). 
> 
> If we can't publish dynamic content using the technologies that we are actually using to build the web platform, then we are failing completely here. 
> 
> The way to address your concerns is to actually fix the loading delays in Respec (and to get it to work offline, etc.). That is to say: to treat Respec and specs in general like "web applications" and less like dead tree carbon copies of some old technology. If Respec is slow on mobile or on desktop, we should fix that - not ban publication of dynamic documents because the software is a bit buggy. 
> 
> -- 
> Marcos Caceres

Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 19:41:09 UTC