Re: ReSpec updated

On 10/03/2016 2:06 PM, Tobie Langel wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, at 19:53, Michael Cooper wrote:
>> There are still changes impacting publication; this version is adding
>> "It is expected to become a W3C Note." for a Note-track document that
>> pubrules rejects; the previous version did not add that, and is accepted
>> by pubrules. This is the one giving me pain right now but there may be
>> others. The output of the new respec needs checking against pubrules
>> before it can be considered fixed. Michael
> I'm sure a pull request fixing this would be most welcome. :)
When I'm in publication hell, exacerbated by a recently broken tool, 
trying to learn the code in order to submit a pull request is just not 
possible. I just don't have time to deal with that. Michael
>
> --tobie
>

Received on Thursday, 10 March 2016 19:14:00 UTC