Re: Lint tools for WebNN

Ok, no problem. If you want to bring general ones over to Speced once they are a bit more mature, that would be great. Happy to give those a look over.  

> On 6 Jun 2024, at 5:09 AM, Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com> wrote:
> 
> At the moment, the tooling is extremely WebNN-spec-specific, and I didn't want perfection to block "good enough". But I'd be interested in collaborating on generalizing things. 
> 
> Many things are very hacky and could benefit from more eyeballs and potentially changes to bikeshed/respec, or integration into those tools via hooks, rather than trying to do post-processing analysis.
> 
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 11:34 AM Marcos Caceres <caceres_m@apple.com <mailto:caceres_m@apple.com>> wrote:
>> Nice! I wonder if the Speced org on github might be a better home (where bikeshed and respec live)? 
>> 
>> https://github.com/speced
>> 
>>> On 6 Jun 2024, at 04:02, Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com <mailto:jsbell@google.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I've written a couple of local tools to help the authoring/reviewing process for WebNN <https://github.com/webmachinelearning/webnn> and finally tossed them in a PR for the other editors to take a look at. They're a mix of very specific (punctuation and phrases we've decided to avoid, don't accidentally pull in a new normative reference, etc) and generic (try to avoid uninitialized variables in algorithms, look for unclosed bikeshed autolinks, etc), and mostly inspired by fixing spec bugs and adding to our spec coding conventions. 
>>> 
>>> For now the tools are aimed at authors, not integrated into the automated publishing process, but that's an obvious future direction.
>>> 
>>> Jeffrey Yasskin suggested I share this with spec-prod, even at this rough early stage. I could imagine hooks in the standard spec-prod actions to invoke per-spec checks that do at least some of this validation. 
>>> 
>>> The PR is here: https://github.com/webmachinelearning/webnn/pull/702