Where is the File module Final Report?

[fgeorges]

@ChristianGruen, the wiki https://www.w3.org/community/expath/wiki/Modules mentioned the File module as being a Final Report. But this is not the case on the CG homepage https://www.w3.org/community/expath/.

If this is "only" a process thing (if it was actually granted the final status, but not published properly on the CG page), I can ask for publication quite quickly.

We might as well take this opportunity to switch it to ReSpec before (only cosmetic changes).

What do you think?

[ChristianGruen]

Sounds good! What’s the fastest way to get this done?

[fgeorges]

I can initiate the process with W3C staff, it is still fresh in my mind :) Do you want to switch it to ReSpec first? It would be good to align our Final Reports I think.

[ChristianGruen]

I’m not sure when I’ll have time to convert the spec to ReSpec. Maybe it’s less effort if we stick to the current format?

[michaelhkay]

I'm not quite sure what the current format is, but for specs that are essentially lists of function specs, I find it really useful to have the source specs in F&O function-catalog format, so it's possible for tools to extract the function signatures, argument names, etc. We shouldn't do anything that reduces the semantic richness of existing markup. Michael Kay Saxonica

…

On 19 Nov 2018, at 11:09, Christian Grün ***@***.***> wrote: I’m not sure when I’ll have time to convert the spec to ReSpec. Maybe it’s less effort if we stick to the current format? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#128 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACSIIqRK8InBnQUHwjkAhjFnVQDo3tCwks5uwpGHgaJpZM4Ynec->.

[johnlumley]

I might possibly have an XSLT conversion of the File Spec into F&O, at least for the catalog. I'll have a look later. John

…

Sent from my iPad

On 19 Nov 2018, at 11:54, Michael Kay ***@***.***> wrote: I'm not quite sure what the current format is, but for specs that are essentially lists of function specs, I find it really useful to have the source specs in F&O function-catalog format, so it's possible for tools to extract the function signatures, argument names, etc. We shouldn't do anything that reduces the semantic richness of existing markup. Michael Kay Saxonica > On 19 Nov 2018, at 11:09, Christian Grün ***@***.***> wrote: > > I’m not sure when I’ll have time to convert the spec to ReSpec. Maybe it’s less effort if we stick to the current format? > > — > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. > Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#128 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACSIIqRK8InBnQUHwjkAhjFnVQDo3tCwks5uwpGHgaJpZM4Ynec->. > — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[johnlumley]

On 19/11/2018 11:54, Michael Kay wrote: I'm not quite sure what the current format is, but for specs that are essentially lists of function specs, I find it really useful to have the source specs in F&O function-catalog format, so it's possible for tools to extract the function signatures, argument names, etc. We shouldn't do anything that reduces the semantic richness of existing markup. Michael Kay Saxonica

Attached are the original File spec, the XSLT to process it and the resulting catalog.xml - we use that to generate our Saxon documentation of function signatures, uniformly with all the other groups of functions. Should be self-explanatory - haven't run it in the last 2 years - one of those things you only need to run once!

…

-- *John Lumley* MA PhD CEng FIEE [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Saxonica Ltd

[michaelhkay]

I see. So (if I understand correctly) we did it in reverse - extracted the function-catalog.xml by up-conversion from the spec prose, rather than generating the spec prose from the function catalog. Mike

…

On 19 Nov 2018, at 13:27, John Lumley ***@***.***> wrote: On 19/11/2018 11:54, Michael Kay wrote: > I'm not quite sure what the current format is, but for specs that are > essentially lists of function specs, I find it really useful to have > the source specs in F&O function-catalog format, so it's possible for > tools to extract the function signatures, argument names, etc. We > shouldn't do anything that reduces the semantic richness of existing > markup. > > Michael Kay > Saxonica Attached are the original File spec, the XSLT to process it and the resulting catalog.xml - we use that to generate our Saxon documentation of function signatures, uniformly with all the other groups of functions. Should be self-explanatory - haven't run it in the last 2 years - one of those things you only need to run once! -- *John Lumley* MA PhD CEng FIEE ***@***.*** ***@***.***> on behalf of Saxonica Ltd — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#128 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACSIIhqzGfWajoW_AWC_WhopCLzGiLo-ks5uwrGxgaJpZM4Ynec->.

[johnlumley]

On 19 Nov 2018, at 14:57, Michael Kay ***@***.***> wrote: I see. So (if I understand correctly) we did it in reverse - extracted the function-catalog.xml by up-conversion from the spec prose, rather than generating the spec prose from the function catalog. Mike

Yes - was the easiest way..... In constructing the Binary spec we did indeed progress catalog -> spec, but the File spec had been written in full prose by Christian et al sometime before mid-2013. It was fairly simple to extract what we needed for the catalog to drive the requirements of Saxon documentation generation. John