Re: Spec authoring tools

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:06 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

> On 12/12/2014 10:32 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com
>> <mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> > There's still one or two CSS specs generated from the old CSSWG
>> > preprocessor, but Bikeshed is basically a superset over it, so if you
>> > can parse Bikeshed you'll be fine.
>>
>>
>> Thanks. Would the CSS 2.1 spec be a good example of the output of that
>> previous preprocessor?
>>
>
> No, but CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders is, IIRC, still on that preprocessor.
> (Note, I expect that to change in the next round of publication or so. But
> that's why we have dated snapshots on /TR.)
>

OK, thanks.

CSS2.1 is generated using Yet Another Custom Preprocessor. I think it is
> specific to CSS2.1.
>

Sounds fun! :-/

Wondering why aren't you just using plinss's Shepherd code?


We're talking about the specificationparser python module[1] found in the
specification Hg repo, right?

I looked at it again this morning. From reading through the code, and
looking at sample output from the CSSWG API[2], it doesn't seem to be
meeting my needs; I'm currently looking at:

- listing normative references,
- listing links to external DFNs,
- listing DFNs,
- linking WebIDL internals to their respective sections.

I also happen to need a solution that supports a large number of authoring
tools, including ReSpec drafts (which are generated on the fly and which
require a JS-aware parser). I'm not sure specificationparser supports that
(couldn't find any tests for it outside of the live code which focuses on
CSS specs).

Finally, I also need a tool that's easy for me to contribute to and that
welcomes external contributions. specificationparser uses Python, a
language I'm not fluent in, a different versioning system than what I use
for the rest of the project, and doesn't have any testing framework setup.
There are deterrents, tbh. The fact it's not on GitHub also makes it harder
for third party contributions which I'd like to encourage (to support other
spec formats, e.g. some accessibility specs, the WebDriver spec which
doesn't use any authoring tool, etc.).

All in all, it doesn't seem like the best option at present.

--tobie

---
[1]:
http://hg.csswg.org/dev/specification/file/e3166f6babe5/python/specification/specificationparser.py
[2]: https://test.csswg.org/shepherd/api/