On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Claus Reinke <[email protected]>wrote:
> [sorry for the incomplete message earlier - keyboard glitch] > > > Have you considered moving the spec drafting to a revision >>>> controlled system, such as git? Michael Smith maintains an >>>> annotated and hyperlinked version of ES5.1 here >>>> http://es5.github.com/. A system like this would certainly >>>> make your maintenance tasks easier, in addition to facilitating >>>> a simplified workfow for creating experimental versions. >>>> >>> > It would be interesting to know what tools were used to generate > the HTML version from the PDF - somewhere in that toolchain, > hyperlinks were added. > > The formal standards process is still targeted towards producing >>> paper documents and Ecma currently requires that these >>> documents be delivered in MS Word format and follow specific >>> styling guidelines (there is what is essentially an ISO standard >>> for standards that we are supposed to follow). >>> >>> Ecma-262 is a complex document. Edition 6 is likely to exceed >>> 300 pages. While Word is far from perfect, it actually provides >>> reasonable support and tooling for documents of that size. It >>> isn't clear to me how github would help with such a document. >>> While I have no fundamental objection to an HTML based >>> document and editing environment, I have no interest to reverting to >>> doing manual formatting markug. I moved beyond that technology around 1985. >>> >>> >> > My favourite tested technology for that size documents would > be LaTeX;-) But there is no need to switch away from the tools > you are using. At least, I think that Word has "Export To XML" > and "Import From XML" functionality. > So the XML version could be on github, and serve for patch > sending and discussion, as well as giving a basis for tools to > work on (such as a search/replace for adding hyperlinks). I > do not know what Word offers in the way of collaborative > editing, but even if you don't want to use github collaboration, > having a spec version on github that can be processed by tools > would be great. > > Assuming, of course, that the exported XML is not completely > unreadable!-) > It will be, at least to humans :) But it doesn't need to be -- there'd still be a huge advantage to tossing the xml -- or better, just the doc or docx -- up to github. Tools could then poll and process what's there in various ways -- all without Allen having to do any heavy lifting. A possible side effect would be a git repo full of the post-processed results (in various forms) enabling diffing one could only dream of against a naked word doc. [snipped the rest]
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
