Some fixes to maintain compliance to the styleguide #638
Conversation
Man I really hate the logic for the copyright page. Someone please make it better. Alternative: make sure it gets an easy-to-reference ID and move that back into the print.js DOM manipulation.
|
Can you explain a bit more about the situation? What is required and what are we doing now that fails to meet the requirement? Also, if it would help, provide screenshots. |
|
It looks like the default copyright in ecmarkup is an earlier version of the current default copyright listed at https://ecma-international.org/policies/by-ipr/ecma-text-copyright-policy/. We should also update that while we're at it. |
|
good call |
|
From reading #462, it seems like we want all TC39 documents (specs and draft specs) to have only the alternative license. And I'm assuming other TCs will use the default copyright. Is that correct? |
|
@michaelficarra I’m waiting to hear back from the secretariat which (if any) other TCs have requested to use the alternative copyright from the GA |
More TCs and TGs are expressing an interest in Ecmarkup, so I want to make sure we can produce the mandatory documents for them at standardization time.
Man I really hate the logic I came up with for the copyright page. Alternative: make sure it gets an easy-to-reference ID and move that back into the print.js DOM manipulation.
This is a draft because I’ve only glossed over the multipage output, haven’t given it a good look yet.This has all been checked on printable & multi-page ECMA-262 & ECMA-402 builds. I noticed no changes on multipage builds.
fixed
replaced blank cover
removed unexpected title page
replaced incorrectly formatted copyright notice—should match template
alternativeoption added toboilerplate.copyrightfor documents which use Ecma’s alternative copyrightformatted Annex titles as expected by template
needs extra scrutiny
I removed the code that moves the “scope” section to the beginning when printable option is passed. I didn’t see a spec that had the scope anywhere else, nor would I expect it. Maybe left over from when I was doing more manipulation on the prince side? Need a gut check that it’s good to go.
I changed the special treatment that the shortname gets when there’s a draft, as it breaks anything relying on the shortname being present. It shouldn’t impact multipage builds at all, but I suppose I could imagine a corner case where before changes to after
Before:
After:
The generated references are meaningfully different because of 👆🏻. Seeking an opinion on whether or not they should not be.