Some fixes to maintain compliance to the styleguide

[gesa]

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

• no longer failing on draft status due to code removing shortname after checking for its presence

replaced blank cover

removed unexpected title page

• removed extraneous address addition to inside cover (and its associated style)
• added missing license page from ToC (it should be listed the same way the bibliography or colophon are)

replaced incorrectly formatted copyright notice—should match template

• software license in wrong spot for printed standards moved to end
• added correct copyright notice for certain standards (Ecma “alternative” copyright notice)
  • alternative option added to boilerplate.copyright for documents which use Ecma’s alternative copyright

formatted 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.

[michaelficarra]

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.

[michaelficarra]

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.

[gesa]

good call

[michaelficarra]

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?

[gesa]

@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