Re: ReSpec updated

Nor should you.  I will dig it out.  I was just looking for a reference to
something that exhibited the behavior.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Michael Cooper <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 10/03/2016 2:06 PM, Tobie Langel wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, at 19:53, Michael Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> There are still changes impacting publication; this version is adding
>>> "It is expected to become a W3C Note." for a Note-track document that
>>> pubrules rejects; the previous version did not add that, and is accepted
>>> by pubrules. This is the one giving me pain right now but there may be
>>> others. The output of the new respec needs checking against pubrules
>>> before it can be considered fixed. Michael
>>>
>> I'm sure a pull request fixing this would be most welcome. :)
>>
> When I'm in publication hell, exacerbated by a recently broken tool,
> trying to learn the code in order to submit a pull request is just not
> possible. I just don't have time to deal with that. Michael
>
>>
>> --tobie
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops