implementation dependencies (was Re: ES4 work)
lhansen at adobe.com
Fri Feb 22 02:40:47 PST 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: es4-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org
> [mailto:es4-discuss-bounces at mozilla.org] On Behalf Of Graydon Hoare
> Sent: 22. februar 2008 09:43
> To: Brendan Eich
> Cc: Michael O'Brien; es4-discuss Discuss; Dave Herman
> Subject: Re: implementation dependencies (was Re: ES4 work)
> Brendan Eich wrote:
> >>>> I'll start the ball rolling with writing up some notes
> on Program
> >>>> Units, use unit and unit dependencies. Brendan/Jeff: what format
> >>>> would you like these notes in?
> >> You missed this question above.
> > No, I ducked :-). Lars is editor with Jeff assisting and
> (as always)
> > maintaining the grammar; I would appreciate Graydon's thoughts too.
> *Shrug* I'm not picky. I think Lars has been working more in
> HTML, and that's what I hope most of the spec-writing will
> happen in, just because it's real easy to render, edit,
> version control and such. But plaintext or some flavour of
> wikitext is also convenient. Word docs less so, though I
> think they're the final target form ECMA wants. And of course
> there are our more academic members who feel more at home in LaTeX.
> Whatever floats your boat. It's relatively easy to
> interconvert, either way.
The spec sources will be written using the mixed HTML/Wiki notation that
is already used by the draft library spec, see what's in the monontone
repository if you're curious (spec/library).
That should however not be a concern to most people who want to
contribute draft spec(let)s, since the actual markup is mainly a problem
for the editors. On the other hand, the more magic software that is
used to produce speclets, the more pain it is for us to extract it into
the actual spec. So be kind. Text and/or wiki notation (whatever
flavor) is best.
(I have written some speclets myself that I will post here if the
present discussion ever subsides, and I have used plain text.)
More information about the Es4-discuss