HTML 2.0 editing [Was: Programming languages for remote agents ]

"Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>

Mail folder: html-archive
Next message: Peter Flynn: "Re: Clarification requested for necessity of </A>"
Previous message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Postscript version of July 1994 HTML 2.0 doc available by HTTP"

Date: Fri, 12 Aug 94 17:49:00 EDT
Message-id: <9408122148.AA24067@ulua.hal.com>
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-wg@oclc.org>
Subject: HTML 2.0 editing [Was: Programming languages for remote agents ]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)

In message <94Aug12.141359pdt.2761@golden.parc.xerox.com>, Larry Masinter write
s:
>by the way, you were going to announce how we could help out with
>editing various chapters of the HTML specification. Have you worked
>this out?

Nope. Sorry. I realize it's been over two weeks, and I have made no
discernable progress. I spent one evening trying to move "the truth"
out of NodeSet, but I got frustrated and quit. There was a lot
hand-editing required, and once you start editing, it's hard to
stop...

My latest theory is to let each co-editor whack at the whole spec in
series. First, I have to come up with tools so that anybody can edit
the "truth" and generate text, postscript, and HTML.

Then I let editor 1 at it; s/he makes changes and regenerates the
document in the various formats to be sure s/he didn't break anything,
and because you can only reasonably review the document in the
delivery format.

Then editor 1 summarizes his/her changes and submits the results.

Then editor 2 gets a whack at it...

The best candidate for a toolset that I can think of is TeXinfo.
Everybody can use it; and the postscript, text, and HTML tools for
it are available and stable.

Dan