- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:47:14 -0700
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > On 26/03/2015 17:23 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: >>> I'm not sure what you mean here Tab :) The index page there is neither >>> ReSpec nor Bikeshed, it's custom-generated. Of the specs there, I believe >>> one is Bikeshed, the others are ReSpec. The system supports both. >> >> I just checked the source of <https://specs.webplatform.org/>, and it >> bears the fingerprint of Bikeshed - the headings, for example, have a >> .settled class, and <span class=content> and <a class=self-link> >> children. Unless someone is *very carefully* reproducing all of >> Bikeshed's quirks, it's definitely a Bikeshed-processed document. > > I can *absolutely* assure you that it is not Bikeshed. I hate an argument > from authority just as much as the next folks but given that I wrote that > code I think I can make that statement with a modicum of confidence. > > You do note correctly that a number of Bikeshed quirks are followed. There's > a reason for that: the stylesheet was initially designed to work with > Bikeshed documents. It was easier to get the markup to match that than to > rewrite it. Hahaha, all right, you win. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 26 March 2015 16:48:05 UTC