I think this is really great, Manu. However, I think it needs the mode
where only the new stuff is provided. That is, content that is
identical to the main spec is just not really a factor is evaluating
added or revised, or changed material. I think the main button for
showing candidate text should be that just the new/revised is shown. I
can always look at the most up to date official draft in another
window. Really, it is challenging enough just to generate candidate
text and graphics without having to concern a potential contributor
with generating the entire spec.
Although it may not be as automated, please see the candidate review
package for some of the embedded objects
"Re: HTML WG Issue tracker ACTION-131 Draft ALT spec"
http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/HTML5/img.html
Redraft of sub sections '4.8.1 The figure element' and '4.8.2 The img
element'
and
http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/misc/HTML5/textalternatives.html
Best practice techniques: Providing text alternatives for images
in which, essentially, only the replacement text is shown. That may be
an old way to do it, but it provides focus for the reviewer who is
familiar with the rest of the document. Then, when the candidate is
approved, if everything ishooked in, the editors might well choose to
use the process you describe here to publish a complete current draft.
Thanks and Best Regards,
Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manu Sporny" <mspo...@digitalbazaar.com>
To: "WHATWG" <wha...@lists.whatwg.org>; "HTMLWG WG"
<public-h...@w3.org>
Cc: "RDFa Developers" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 8:39 AM
Subject: New HTML5 spec-editing tools released
The newest version of the microsection spec-editing tools have been
made
available:
http://wiki.github.com/html5/spec
These tools, microsplit and microjoin, are capable of:
* Taking Ian's latest HTML5 spec as an input document and splitting
it
up into microsections.
* Re-mixing, removing and adding microsections specified from
another
source (for example: RDFa, John Foliot's summary suggestions, etc.)
* Producing one or more output specifications (such as Ian's HTML5
spec,
HTML5-rdfa, HTML5-johnfoliot-summary, etc.)
This process:
* Does not impact Ian's current editing workflow.
* Empowers additional editors to modify the HTML5 specification
without
stomping on each other's changes.
* Enables alternate HTML5 specifications to be authored while
automatically updating the alternates with Ian's spec changes.
* Is currently used to produce the HTML5+RDFa specification.
* Provides a mechanism that can be used to generate specification
language that is specific, and that can be used to form consensus
around the HTML5 specification at the W3C.
* Enables thoughtful and well-mannered dissent.
There is even a pretty picture that describes the workflow:
http://wiki.github.com/html5/spec
Anyone is free to clone the repository, use the tools, generate
remixed/updated/altered specifications and propose them as
alternatives.
I am seeking thoughts and suggestions about these tools - how they
might
help or hinder, as well as improvements that should be considered.
-- manu
--
Manu Sporny
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Bitmunk 3.1 Released - Browser-based P2P Commerce
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/06/29/browser-based-p2p-commerce/
