Some missing docs?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Some missing docs?

Rick Byers
Hi,
The ReSpec user's guide used to contain a bunch of guidance on how to properly do linking including to other specs (eg. [[SPEC]] vs. [[!SPEC]] syntax).  As far as I can tell, none of that documentation has survived in the new wiki.  Am I just missing it?  If the wiki is indeed still incomplete, are the old docs still saved somewhere (better than the Google cache I've been using)?

The specific question I was looking for was whether it's possible to refer to the ED version of a spec (and ideally a specific anchor inside the spec instead of just to the whole document generally).  I'm guessing the answer is no, and for both cases I should just use <a> tags with explicit URLs, right?

Thanks,
   Rick


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Some missing docs?

Shane McCarron-7

I don't know what's up with the documentation but there is no good easy to reference inside of a spec other than an a tag.

On Jul 5, 2016 9:32 PM, "Rick Byers" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,
The ReSpec user's guide used to contain a bunch of guidance on how to properly do linking including to other specs (eg. [[SPEC]] vs. [[!SPEC]] syntax).  As far as I can tell, none of that documentation has survived in the new wiki.  Am I just missing it?  If the wiki is indeed still incomplete, are the old docs still saved somewhere (better than the Google cache I've been using)?

The specific question I was looking for was whether it's possible to refer to the ED version of a spec (and ideally a specific anchor inside the spec instead of just to the whole document generally).  I'm guessing the answer is no, and for both cases I should just use <a> tags with explicit URLs, right?

Thanks,
   Rick


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Some missing docs?

Rick Byers
Thanks.

And now I've found the thread where Marcos says he's in the process of migrating the docs, so presumably that's just still work-in-progress (despite the old docs site being gone already).

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't know what's up with the documentation but there is no good easy to reference inside of a spec other than an a tag.

On Jul 5, 2016 9:32 PM, "Rick Byers" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,
The ReSpec user's guide used to contain a bunch of guidance on how to properly do linking including to other specs (eg. [[SPEC]] vs. [[!SPEC]] syntax).  As far as I can tell, none of that documentation has survived in the new wiki.  Am I just missing it?  If the wiki is indeed still incomplete, are the old docs still saved somewhere (better than the Google cache I've been using)?

The specific question I was looking for was whether it's possible to refer to the ED version of a spec (and ideally a specific anchor inside the spec instead of just to the whole document generally).  I'm guessing the answer is no, and for both cases I should just use <a> tags with explicit URLs, right?

Thanks,
   Rick



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Some missing docs?

Marcos Caceres-4
On July 6, 2016 at 6:41:25 AM, Rick Byers ([hidden email]) wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> And now I've found the thread
> where
> Marcos says he's in the process of migrating the docs, so presumably that's
> just still work-in-progress (despite the old docs site being gone already).

So, I had copied most of the text from the guide into the appropriate
ReSpec options, but you are correct that I didn't bring over the full
guide (so simple things like "how do I link?" were indeed missing).

I've added the guide here:

https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/User's-Guide

It needs a bit of editing - but all the essentials are now there.

Note that ReSpec does not yet support BS's super fancy cross-document
linking. I would like to work on that next month, after we finish the
transition to HTTPS-everywhere and the new PubRules checker is up an
running.

Kind regards,
Marcos

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Some missing docs?

Rick Byers
Awesome, thanks Marcos!

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Marcos Caceres <[hidden email]> wrote:
On July 6, 2016 at 6:41:25 AM, Rick Byers ([hidden email]) wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> And now I've found the thread
> where
> Marcos says he's in the process of migrating the docs, so presumably that's
> just still work-in-progress (despite the old docs site being gone already).

So, I had copied most of the text from the guide into the appropriate
ReSpec options, but you are correct that I didn't bring over the full
guide (so simple things like "how do I link?" were indeed missing).

I've added the guide here:

https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/User's-Guide

It needs a bit of editing - but all the essentials are now there.

Note that ReSpec does not yet support BS's super fancy cross-document
linking. I would like to work on that next month, after we finish the
transition to HTTPS-everywhere and the new PubRules checker is up an
running.

Kind regards,
Marcos