On Oct 12, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Dean Landolt wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Claus Reinke <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > > 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.
The doc version of the latest stable draft is always posted at http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:specification_drafts I can also start to post a docx version if there are people that want them. For the curious, I've created and uploaded html and docx versions of my experiments document: http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=harmony%3Aspecification_drafts&cache=cache&media=harmony:11.1.5-alternatives-2.htm and http://wiki.ecmascript.org/lib/exe/fetch.php?id=harmony%3Aspecification_drafts&cache=cache&media=harmony:11.1.5-alternatives-2.xml (the ES wiki wouldn't let me upload a file with the docx extension so I changed it to xml. change it back to docx if you want to open it with word. Also, I note the Firefox claims that it is not a well-formed XML document...) Allen
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
