Closed arnoweiss closed 3 months ago
In the past, we've talked about having a "generic" profile to allow what you are requesting above. Basically, it would be a stripped down version of headers.js living in a "generic" (or similarly named) folder - with all the W3C stuff stripped out.
Just to be clear, we can't add it to the W3C profile for the reason you mentioned. Doing it with logic would definitely work, but it would start making things really messy (or messier than headers.js already is... which is pretty messy already).
Thanks for the answer - is there a governance process to add a new profile? I'd like to avoid putting work into this and then getting rejected for formal reasons.
Closing and reopening with different scope
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. I want to use respec for a non-w3c specification project. The license is determined to be Apache-2.0.
Describe the solution you'd like In the configuration options, the
license
key is an enum. https://github.com/speced/respec/blob/0409aa09b262cd828191324cdaace143fb39e420/src/w3c/headers.js#L210 I'd like to see Apache 2.0 added to that list.Additional context As I understand, respec is driven by but not limited to w3c projects. W3c does not permit Apache-2.0 for specification projects. This can be enforced in the build logic as it currently is for CC0 or CC-BY.
https://github.com/speced/respec/blob/0409aa09b262cd828191324cdaace143fb39e420/src/w3c/headers.js#L313
Describe any alternatives you've considered Optionally providing license info via free text would satisfy my use-case but might invite circumvention of enforcement rules (as above).
Can you or your organization fund the work or help with development? I'd be willing to contribute. Getting feedback if the feature is welcome would be great before starting with implementation.