Pick a format for the spec

[jyasskin]

Right now it's in ReSpec with HTML sectioning.

• ReSpec avoids the need to build the spec outside the browser. It has limited support for cross-spec autolinking (w3c/respec#332). It doesn't support modern WebIDL constructs like stringifier (w3c/respec#31). It generates weird sub-sections for members of dictionaries, and while there's an undocumented noLegacyStyle switch to turn them off, that simply deletes the associated documentation rather than just formatting it better (w3c/respec#334).
• ReSpec also has an undocumented Markdown syntax (markdown option not documented w3c/respec-docs#7), which might make the document slightly easier to read.
• https://github.com/slightlyoff/web-spec-framework is Polymer-based so also has no build step, but doesn't really provide any help with spec formatting.
• https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed requires a build step, but is actually maintained and has good source-code text shortcuts and cross-spec linking.

I'm not going to investigate this in the short run, but if a clear preference emerges here, we can switch.

[marcoscaceres]

@jyasskin we do try to actively maintain ReSpec. About the noLegacy thing ... it's half way between a feature and bug :)

Re: Bikeshed: The build step, + the somewhat weird markup variation it uses, has been an issue for contributions to the picture element. This is because people get confused as to which document to contribute to. Everything has a trade off. I would recommend ReSpec personally.

[mounirlamouri]

I second @marcoscaceres, you should probably stick with respec. It's widely used, simple and actively supported.

[jyasskin]

ReSpec seems to be working fine.