New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Using respec for non-w3c specs #950
Comments
Also: |
There isn't really a value for "specStatus" that means "use ReSpec but remove all the W3C stuff". As far as I know when people do this they make their own profile. @marcoscaceres do you have any other ideas? |
This definitely sounds like custom profile. @riannella, easiest way to create a custom profile is to fork this repository, then edit js/profile-w3c-common.js and comment out any W3C stuff you don't need (the names should be fairly obvious). Then you will need to run: npm install
./tools/build-w3c-common.js That will build you a custom profile. You can find more details here: https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/Developers-Guide |
I should mention, the custom profile will be located "builds/respec-w3c-common.js". You can rename that file something else to deploy it. If you want to go further, you will need to change some other things (e.g., the builder tool) and make custom plugins. Hope that helps! |
Thanks @marcoscaceres. I will see how well I do at this 😀 |
Is this still the recommended approach to use ReSpec for non-W3C specs? We are thinking about using it for AOM documents. I'm concerned about divergences if we have to maintain our own fork. I wonder if an approach like the one chosen by Bikeshed could be used, i.e. have organization-specific statuses that trigger or not specific features. |
I don't know about the policy, but I'll note that there are 3 maintained profiles in this repo (W3C, DINI & Geonovum) |
For reference, I found this example that indeed uses ReSpec without the W3C styles https://geonovum.github.io/praktijkrichtlijn-vector-tiling/ |
@cconcolato Creating status like bikeshed could add to the size of profiles that don't use them. So, creating a new profile is preferable. We can help you set up a new profile in this repo: we will make sure the core plugins and build process continue to work, while you can maintain code related to your profile. Though, I think it might be a good option if we can create a |
For large orgs, having your own profile in /profiles/ is best (along with any appropriate tests for any custom code + a commitment to maintain any added code, as @sidvishnoi said). I don't have strong opinion on creating a respec-base module... could even be a profile (respec-core.js, no W3C stuff), then people can use the appropriate hooks to add whatever they need. |
I forked the repo and tried to created an AOM profile mimicking one of the existing profiles, but I'm not sure what modules are required or not. I could use some help, see https://github.com/cconcolato/respec/tree/aom_profile |
The ones you added all look ok to me, @cconcolato. |
@cconcolato, to package.json, under
And that should be (almost) good to go... you can then copy/paste Give me should if you want to go over stuff together. Happy to have a quick Zoom call or whatever to answer any questions. |
Hi, I would like to use respec for a non-w3c specification. I assume that is allowed?
I have used the "base" SpecStatus, but it still automatically produces some W3C-specific stuff:
1 - includes "W3C Document " under the document title.
2 - includes the full "Copyright W3C....MIT/etc...." line in the header
3 - forces you to have an Abstract
4 - auto includes the SOTD section (with W3C mentioned)
Is there anyway to turn these off (or replace them with non-w3c terms).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: