Re: ReSpec and how it gets used

Shane McCarron <[email protected]> Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:27:57 -0500
Newsgroups gmane.org.w3c.specifications
Message-ID <CAJdbnODCaADzJpbTpvzTjVE3ZQ5wKx3dbO5+M9xUc0hm0Y3eNg@mail.gmail.com>
--94eb2c0934c2a177640534cca92f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I was aware that you were having issues Matt.  I was not aware they were
quite this dire.  Can you send us / me the URI to your rawgit tree so I can
figure out what the respec issue is?  As far as I know the ARIA trees were
fixed to work with the current ReSpec a couple of weeks ago.

As to your suggestions....  the approach I had wanted to take was to set
aria-busy to true on the body element until respec and any extensions were
complete.  ReSpec added a Promise that should facilitate this.  Do you
think this approach would work?

On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Matt King <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't know if this is the right thread for this comment ... if not, fee=
l
> free to let me know.
>
> I am an editor and I rely on the JAWS screen reader. Because Firefox has
> to be updating is accessibility tree as respect runs, it takes a really
> long time to run. It is rare that I am able to start reading a branch in
> rawgit in under a minute. The ARIA spec takes up to 2 minutes before I ca=
n
> read it. Then, sometimes, like today, things are very broken. Today, none
> of the roles, states, or property sections have headings or permalinks. I
> don't know if that is due to a new respec bug or a failure of respect to
> run completely, or a defect in my spec text. Today, I know it is not a
> defect in my text because I haven't changed it since it last worked.
>
> I am wondering if there is a better way for respect to work. Is there a
> way to make all the respec changes without doing it on the live DOM and
> then replace the entire DOM or something like that. Content hidden with
> display none is left out of the AX tree, so maybe the whole DOM could be
> hidden while the processing is occurring ... maybe not great for everyone=
,
> but at least you would all have an experience that is more like mine
> <smile>.
>
> Matt King
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 2:47 AM
> To: Shane McCarron <[email protected]>
> Cc: Michiel Bijl <[email protected]>; spec-prod <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: ReSpec and how it gets used
>
> On June 8, 2016 at 5:37:19 AM, Shane McCarron ([email protected]) wrote:
> > Comments in line
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Markus Lanthaler
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > >> browser is over 2 years old now, and has been superseded by Edge).
> > > >> Either kindly ask your users to switch to Edge
> > >
> > > Well, that might be tricky for lots of users as it also requires an
> > > OS update.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed. Moreover, this is not an option for many users (see below).
>
> But this is an option for everyone who writes specs. I've never met anyon=
e
> at the w3c who is in this situation (or can't use another browser).
>
> > > >> or use a more modern browser ... alternatively, please publish
> > > >> the ReSpec output instead, which should work on any browser going
> > > >> back to IE6.
> > >
> > > I'm not going to ask to start supporting IE11 again but what browser
> > > support do you aim for? Only the absolute latest version? IE11 still
> > > seems to have a considerable market share...
> > >
> >
> >
> > We have no clear guidelines on this My inclination is to never break
> > faith with backward compatibility unless maintaining it forces a
> > reduction in primary function. I suspect we have made a mistake
> > removing whatever polyfill enabled IE11 support.
>
> There was nothing removed. Just stuff got added. IE11 is not maintained,
> so it breaks because it's been left behind by the Web.
>
> > And while I agree with some other
> > commenters that publishing static versions is a better end user
> > experience anyway, the reality is that many working groups are
> > developing specs using ReSpec, and those groups don't want to take the
> > time to generate static versions - in particular for their "Editor's
> > Draft"s. So to the extent that we want people to be able to readily
> > review specs as they are in development, we need to take this into
> consideration.
>
> Agree. This is a long process - but we need to work as a community to get
> there.
>
> > Note that I am not talking about the people writing the specs. I
> > assume they are working with relatively modern user agents. They are
> > typically geeks like us. But their constituents are often less
> > tech-savvy. The Web Payments community, for example, has A LOT of
> > bankers in it. Conservative organizations tend to lock down software
> > and only upgrade rarely, and then after acceptance testing. But they
> > are nonetheless members of the W3C, and should be able to review and
> comment on our specs.
>
> Sure, and again the best way to serve them is to give them generated
> snapshots (even of EDs).
>
> > >
> > > > As a reader of ReSpec'd specs, I'd highly appreciate it if more
> > > > people published the generated output instead of the sources. It
> > > > avoids the flash-of-unprocessed-content and subsequent
> > > > anchor-jumping, and it works better in the tooling infrastructure.
> > >
> > > The thing I like most about ReSpec is that it doesn't need any
> > > "compilation" step. It's not perfect but for most use cases it works
> > > well enough.
> > >
> > >
> > Yes. It is what drew many of us to ReSpec. The recent instability has
> > made it a much less desirable platform. My groups have spent a lot of
> > time trying to resolve ReSpec introduced problems or learning new
> > requirements as features change. Worse yet, various changes have
> > broken the tool chain that enabled the automated generation of "TR"
> > versions of specs or otherwise made it impossible to publish without
> hand-editing.
>
> This is no different to Bikeshed or Anolis or any other piece of software=
.
> Software breaks, things change. We patch stuff quickly and move on.
> =C2=AF\_(=E3=83=84)_/=C2=AF
>
> > As a maintainer of ReSpec, I am appalled. As a user, I am frustrated.
> > As an advocate, I am finding it a hard product to recommend.
>
> It's open source, you are free to leave, fork, use BikeShed, whatever
> =C2=AF\_(=E3=83=84)_/=C2=AF.
>
> I like the improvements I've made - and sure, there was a little pain for
> a tiny number of people for maybe a couple of hours, but whatever.
> At least it's actually getting maintained and updated now - and it's
> vastly better.
>
> A year ago, it was "stable" in the sense that it was rotting away because
> no one was spending any time improving it after Robin left.
> That's not stability: that's just bit rot.
>
> > Perhaps the solution is to make all the (named) versions available so
> > that document developers can choose the one that works well for them
> > and their users? Or identify a stable version and call that official,
> > then leave the "development" bleeding-edge that people can use or not.
>
> That's what we do today. We develop in branches, which go to "develop",
> which then get released into "gh-pages".
>
> >  Do a migration to
> > stable periodically after substantial testing. I don't know. But
> > something needs to change. Right now I see the best case as people
> > forking ReSpec so they have something they can rely upon. I see the
> > worst case as them abandoning the platform. Both of these would be a
> failure.
>
> I think you are totally over dramatizing things. Little bugs are no big
> deal. Most people haven't noticed that we've done like 40+ releases in th=
e
> last year.
>
>
>


--=20
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops

--94eb2c0934c2a177640534cca92f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">I was aware that you were having issues Matt.=C2=A0 I was =
not aware they were quite this dire.=C2=A0 Can you send us / me the URI to =
your rawgit tree so I can figure out what the respec issue is?=C2=A0 As far=
 as I know the ARIA trees were fixed to work with the current ReSpec a coup=
le of weeks ago.<div><br></div><div>As to your suggestions.... =C2=A0the ap=
proach I had wanted to take was to set aria-busy to true on the body elemen=
t until respec and any extensions were complete.=C2=A0 ReSpec added a Promi=
se that should facilitate this.=C2=A0 Do you think this approach would work=
?</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On W=
ed, Jun 8, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Matt King <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>&gt;</=
span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I don&#39;t know if this is =
the right thread for this comment ... if not, feel free to let me know.<br>
<br>
I am an editor and I rely on the JAWS screen reader. Because Firefox has to=
 be updating is accessibility tree as respect runs, it takes a really long =
time to run. It is rare that I am able to start reading a branch in rawgit =
in under a minute. The ARIA spec takes up to 2 minutes before I can read it=
. Then, sometimes, like today, things are very broken. Today, none of the r=
oles, states, or property sections have headings or permalinks. I don&#39;t=
 know if that is due to a new respec bug or a failure of respect to run com=
pletely, or a defect in my spec text. Today, I know it is not a defect in m=
y text because I haven&#39;t changed it since it last worked.<br>
<br>
I am wondering if there is a better way for respect to work. Is there a way=
 to make all the respec changes without doing it on the live DOM and then r=
eplace the entire DOM or something like that. Content hidden with display n=
one is left out of the AX tree, so maybe the whole DOM could be hidden whil=
e the processing is occurring ... maybe not great for everyone, but at leas=
t you would all have an experience that is more like mine &lt;smile&gt;.<br=
>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
Matt King<br>
</font></span><span class=3D"im HOEnZb"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">w3c@marcosc=
.com</a>]<br>
</span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 201=
6 2:47 AM<br>
To: Shane McCarron &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">shane@spec-ops.=
io</a>&gt;<br>
Cc: Michiel Bijl &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]=
</a>&gt;; spec-prod &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]=
g</a>&gt;<br>
Subject: Re: ReSpec and how it gets used<br>
<br>
On June 8, 2016 at 5:37:19 AM, Shane McCarron (<a href=3D"mailto:shane@spec=
-ops.io">[email protected]</a>) wrote:<br>
&gt; Comments in line<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Markus Lanthaler<br>
&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; browser is over 2 years old now, and has been superseded=
 by Edge).<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; Either kindly ask your users to switch to Edge<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Well, that might be tricky for lots of users as it also requires =
an<br>
&gt; &gt; OS update.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Agreed. Moreover, this is not an option for many users (see below).<br=
>
<br>
But this is an option for everyone who writes specs. I&#39;ve never met any=
one at the w3c who is in this situation (or can&#39;t use another browser).=
<br>
<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; or use a more modern browser ... alternatively, please p=
ublish<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; the ReSpec output instead, which should work on any brow=
ser going<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt;&gt; back to IE6.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; I&#39;m not going to ask to start supporting IE11 again but what =
browser<br>
&gt; &gt; support do you aim for? Only the absolute latest version? IE11 st=
ill<br>
&gt; &gt; seems to have a considerable market share...<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; We have no clear guidelines on this My inclination is to never break<b=
r>
&gt; faith with backward compatibility unless maintaining it forces a<br>
&gt; reduction in primary function. I suspect we have made a mistake<br>
&gt; removing whatever polyfill enabled IE11 support.<br>
<br>
There was nothing removed. Just stuff got added. IE11 is not maintained, so=
 it breaks because it&#39;s been left behind by the Web.<br>
<br>
&gt; And while I agree with some other<br>
&gt; commenters that publishing static versions is a better end user<br>
&gt; experience anyway, the reality is that many working groups are<br>
&gt; developing specs using ReSpec, and those groups don&#39;t want to take=
 the<br>
&gt; time to generate static versions - in particular for their &quot;Edito=
r&#39;s<br>
&gt; Draft&quot;s. So to the extent that we want people to be able to readi=
ly<br>
&gt; review specs as they are in development, we need to take this into con=
sideration.<br>
<br>
Agree. This is a long process - but we need to work as a community to get t=
here.<br>
<br>
&gt; Note that I am not talking about the people writing the specs. I<br>
&gt; assume they are working with relatively modern user agents. They are<b=
r>
&gt; typically geeks like us. But their constituents are often less<br>
&gt; tech-savvy. The Web Payments community, for example, has A LOT of<br>
&gt; bankers in it. Conservative organizations tend to lock down software<b=
r>
&gt; and only upgrade rarely, and then after acceptance testing. But they<b=
r>
&gt; are nonetheless members of the W3C, and should be able to review and c=
omment on our specs.<br>
<br>
Sure, and again the best way to serve them is to give them generated snapsh=
ots (even of EDs).<br>
<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; As a reader of ReSpec&#39;d specs, I&#39;d highly appreciate=
 it if more<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; people published the generated output instead of the sources=
. It<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; avoids the flash-of-unprocessed-content and subsequent<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; anchor-jumping, and it works better in the tooling infrastru=
cture.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; The thing I like most about ReSpec is that it doesn&#39;t need an=
y<br>
&gt; &gt; &quot;compilation&quot; step. It&#39;s not perfect but for most u=
se cases it works<br>
&gt; &gt; well enough.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; Yes. It is what drew many of us to ReSpec. The recent instability has<=
br>
&gt; made it a much less desirable platform. My groups have spent a lot of<=
br>
&gt; time trying to resolve ReSpec introduced problems or learning new<br>
&gt; requirements as features change. Worse yet, various changes have<br>
&gt; broken the tool chain that enabled the automated generation of &quot;T=
R&quot;<br>
&gt; versions of specs or otherwise made it impossible to publish without h=
and-editing.<br>
<br>
This is no different to Bikeshed or Anolis or any other piece of software. =
Software breaks, things change. We patch stuff quickly and move on.<br>
=C2=AF\_(=E3=83=84)_/=C2=AF<br>
<br>
&gt; As a maintainer of ReSpec, I am appalled. As a user, I am frustrated.<=
br>
&gt; As an advocate, I am finding it a hard product to recommend.<br>
<br>
It&#39;s open source, you are free to leave, fork, use BikeShed, whatever<b=
r>
=C2=AF\_(=E3=83=84)_/=C2=AF.<br>
<br>
I like the improvements I&#39;ve made - and sure, there was a little pain f=
or a tiny number of people for maybe a couple of hours, but whatever.<br>
At least it&#39;s actually getting maintained and updated now - and it&#39;=
s vastly better.<br>
<br>
A year ago, it was &quot;stable&quot; in the sense that it was rotting away=
 because no one was spending any time improving it after Robin left.<br>
That&#39;s not stability: that&#39;s just bit rot.<br>
<br>
&gt; Perhaps the solution is to make all the (named) versions available so<=
br>
&gt; that document developers can choose the one that works well for them<b=
r>
&gt; and their users? Or identify a stable version and call that official,<=
br>
&gt; then leave the &quot;development&quot; bleeding-edge that people can u=
se or not.<br>
<br>
That&#39;s what we do today. We develop in branches, which go to &quot;deve=
lop&quot;, which then get released into &quot;gh-pages&quot;.<br>
<br>
&gt;=C2=A0 Do a migration to<br>
&gt; stable periodically after substantial testing. I don&#39;t know. But<b=
r>
&gt; something needs to change. Right now I see the best case as people<br>
&gt; forking ReSpec so they have something they can rely upon. I see the<br=
>
&gt; worst case as them abandoning the platform. Both of these would be a f=
ailure.<br>
<br>
I think you are totally over dramatizing things. Little bugs are no big dea=
l. Most people haven&#39;t noticed that we&#39;ve done like 40+ releases in=
 the last year.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr">Shane McCarron<div>Projects Manager, Spec-Op=
s</div></div></div></div></div>
</div>

--94eb2c0934c2a177640534cca92f--