- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 11:18:01 +0200
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: "spec-prod@w3.org" <spec-prod@w3.org>, Ms2ger <ms2ger@gmail.com>
On 12/06/2015 22:24 , Dirk Schulze wrote: >> On Jun 12, 2015, at 10:17 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: >> On June 12, 2015 at 4:13:53 PM, Ms2ger (ms2ger@gmail.com) wrote: >>> If you still use Anolis, please move to Tab Atkins' Bikeshed [1] tool. >> >> Or ReSpec - "because a ReSpec spec doesn't end with .bs" ;) > > Anyone thought about writing a spec for spec tools? We've mentioned it a few times. There could probably be value in agreeing at least on a baseline syntax in common. I'm not sure it's possible though (Bikeshed and ReSpec are actually a lot closer in small details than they are in overall syntax). It also feels a little bit uncomfortably meta. They're also JFDI projects that might not work all that well with the notion of standards :) I've considered writing a Bikeshed mode for ReSpec to help people switch, but didn't get around to it. Fare well Anolis, victim to the relentless progress of Web technology! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 15 June 2015 09:18:08 UTC