On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 08:41:12AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > so I'd say go ahead even if it is 200GiB. That would be pretty amazing. It's 200MiB, of course, as you and Paul note. > That said, Thaddeus, if you do go ahead with the upload please check if > you can minimize that size somehow, even just a 10% drop in size would > already be worth the work it took for something big like this. Yes, this is a good point. Part of the problem, however -- if it is indeed a problem -- regards an apparently complicated situation upstream. Upstream of w3-recs is currently less orderly than upstream of doc-rfc (this is not a criticism of upstream; there are reasons for the comparative disorder; FLOSS developers are probably not responsible). Without inserting the Debian Project in any way into internal upstream processes, I believe that I have unraveled the upstream knot sufficiently to update our package w3-recs in a more or less sensible way. In light of the situation upstream, five years ago, the maintainer of our w3-recs package made the probably correct decision to include in the package not only documents upstream had blessed as REC (recommendation), but also documents in the upstream statuses of PR (proposed recommendation) and CR (candidate recommendation). For better or for worse, the HTML 5.1 specification (PR) normatively references several mere working drafts (WD). Most of the referenced working drafts are actually in pretty good shape; but, at any rate, you don't have a clear line any more between actual standards and mere drafts. Most likely, when the torrid pace of development of the relevant standards slows down again, upstream will eventually restore better order; but, until then, this is what we've got. So, I'd have to do some curation, rejecting some documents and accepting others. The result would be imperfect but nevertheless quite useful, and would be much better than the obsolete w3-recs we have now. > For example, suppose it ships the recommendations in several rendered > formats (PDF, PS, HTML/XHTML) and master hypertext (XML DOCBOOK, > whatever). It would be quite acceptable to drop everything but the > xhtml/html+css+images versions from the binary packages: people won't > install these to print, they will install them to read while working on > something (code, documents, etc) or researching, and browser-friendly > hypertext is MUCH better for search, cut-and-paste, reading, and > alternative renderings (voiced, etc) than PDF/PS/etc. This is a good idea. I'll do it. I am aware of one redistributable document only available as a PDF (remember that w3-recs is non-free); but your advice works for all the others as far as I know.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature