definitions and aliasing

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

definitions and aliasing

Shane McCarron
Last October I did a ton of work implementing much of the Bikeshed definition aliasing stuff (so we could say <dfn title="the term|the terms|term|terms">The Term</dfn> and then references like <a>the terms</a> would just work.

I somehow lost all that work, so I am starting again.  

I noticed that bikeshed has changed its attribute for the 'title' of a definition from 'title' to 'lt' and 'local-lt' (for a definition that shouldn't be exported).  I intend to implement this in baby steps.  I need the aliasing stuff RIGHT NOW.  I don't need the rest immediately.

Anyway, we *must* keep support for @title because it would break every document if we did not.  My question is "should we also support @lt and @local-lt?"  A secondary question is "should we deprecate @title in favor of @lt?"

--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: definitions and aliasing

Tab Atkins Jr.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Last October I did a ton of work implementing much of the Bikeshed
> definition aliasing stuff (so we could say <dfn title="the term|the
> terms|term|terms">The Term</dfn> and then references like <a>the terms</a>
> would just work.
>
> I somehow lost all that work, so I am starting again.
>
> I noticed that bikeshed has changed its attribute for the 'title' of a
> definition from 'title' to 'lt' and 'local-lt' (for a definition that
> shouldn't be exported).  I intend to implement this in baby steps.  I need
> the aliasing stuff RIGHT NOW.  I don't need the rest immediately.
>
> Anyway, we *must* keep support for @title because it would break every
> document if we did not.  My question is "should we also support @lt and
> @local-lt?"  A secondary question is "should we deprecate @title in favor of
> @lt?"

When Bikeshed made the switch, I just turned off @title handling
entirely, and logged a warning message if I saw an <a> or <dfn> with
@title but not @lt.  People switched quickly, since it was an easy
search-and-replace.

~TJ

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: definitions and aliasing

Shane McCarron

Sure, but since respec is client side and there are live specs that use it and are end user facing we need to be careful with that.

On Jul 9, 2015 3:14 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Last October I did a ton of work implementing much of the Bikeshed
> definition aliasing stuff (so we could say <dfn title="the term|the
> terms|term|terms">The Term</dfn> and then references like <a>the terms</a>
> would just work.
>
> I somehow lost all that work, so I am starting again.
>
> I noticed that bikeshed has changed its attribute for the 'title' of a
> definition from 'title' to 'lt' and 'local-lt' (for a definition that
> shouldn't be exported).  I intend to implement this in baby steps.  I need
> the aliasing stuff RIGHT NOW.  I don't need the rest immediately.
>
> Anyway, we *must* keep support for @title because it would break every
> document if we did not.  My question is "should we also support @lt and
> @local-lt?"  A secondary question is "should we deprecate @title in favor of
> @lt?"

When Bikeshed made the switch, I just turned off @title handling
entirely, and logged a warning message if I saw an <a> or <dfn> with
@title but not @lt.  People switched quickly, since it was an easy
search-and-replace.

~TJ
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: definitions and aliasing

Tab Atkins Jr.
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2015 3:14 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Last October I did a ton of work implementing much of the Bikeshed
>> > definition aliasing stuff (so we could say <dfn title="the term|the
>> > terms|term|terms">The Term</dfn> and then references like <a>the
>> > terms</a>
>> > would just work.
>> >
>> > I somehow lost all that work, so I am starting again.
>> >
>> > I noticed that bikeshed has changed its attribute for the 'title' of a
>> > definition from 'title' to 'lt' and 'local-lt' (for a definition that
>> > shouldn't be exported).  I intend to implement this in baby steps.  I
>> > need
>> > the aliasing stuff RIGHT NOW.  I don't need the rest immediately.
>> >
>> > Anyway, we *must* keep support for @title because it would break every
>> > document if we did not.  My question is "should we also support @lt and
>> > @local-lt?"  A secondary question is "should we deprecate @title in
>> > favor of
>> > @lt?"
>>
>> When Bikeshed made the switch, I just turned off @title handling
>> entirely, and logged a warning message if I saw an <a> or <dfn> with
>> @title but not @lt.  People switched quickly, since it was an easy
>> search-and-replace.
>
> Sure, but since respec is client side and there are live specs that use it
> and are end user facing we need to be careful with that.

Are people embedding a tip-of-tree ReSpec link?

~TJ

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: definitions and aliasing

Shane McCarron

Yep. In editors drafts especially.

On Jul 9, 2015 4:36 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2015 3:14 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Last October I did a ton of work implementing much of the Bikeshed
>> > definition aliasing stuff (so we could say <dfn title="the term|the
>> > terms|term|terms">The Term</dfn> and then references like <a>the
>> > terms</a>
>> > would just work.
>> >
>> > I somehow lost all that work, so I am starting again.
>> >
>> > I noticed that bikeshed has changed its attribute for the 'title' of a
>> > definition from 'title' to 'lt' and 'local-lt' (for a definition that
>> > shouldn't be exported).  I intend to implement this in baby steps.  I
>> > need
>> > the aliasing stuff RIGHT NOW.  I don't need the rest immediately.
>> >
>> > Anyway, we *must* keep support for @title because it would break every
>> > document if we did not.  My question is "should we also support @lt and
>> > @local-lt?"  A secondary question is "should we deprecate @title in
>> > favor of
>> > @lt?"
>>
>> When Bikeshed made the switch, I just turned off @title handling
>> entirely, and logged a warning message if I saw an <a> or <dfn> with
>> @title but not @lt.  People switched quickly, since it was an easy
>> search-and-replace.
>
> Sure, but since respec is client side and there are live specs that use it
> and are end user facing we need to be careful with that.

Are people embedding a tip-of-tree ReSpec link?

~TJ
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: definitions and aliasing

Robin Berjon-6
In reply to this post by Shane McCarron
On 09/07/2015 23:11 , Shane McCarron wrote:
> Sure, but since respec is client side and there are live specs that use
> it and are end user facing we need to be careful with that.

Just use warnings, it won't break anything. People fix their warnings
pretty quickly usually.

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: definitions and aliasing

Robin Berjon-6
In reply to this post by Tab Atkins Jr.
On 09/07/2015 23:35 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> Are people embedding a tip-of-tree ReSpec link?

Almost no one uses tip-of-tree. That's really only if you're working on
ReSpec code, and even then you wouldn't use it for anything other than a
test document — outside of a build it's way too slow.

But everyone uses the latest release. That's the point at which
deprecation warnings start showing up everywhere. I think that's okay.

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: definitions and aliasing

Shane McCarron
Yeah - I didn't mean tip-of-tree.  But lots of people use the latest release.  And they do so in production documents, not just Editor's Drafts.

I like the idea of doing a warning on Title use when there is no @lt.  I will see about adding that.  I have an updated pull request.  Maybe I can squeeze it into that.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Robin Berjon <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 09/07/2015 23:35 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Are people embedding a tip-of-tree ReSpec link?

Almost no one uses tip-of-tree. That's really only if you're working on ReSpec code, and even then you wouldn't use it for anything other than a test document — outside of a build it's way too slow.

But everyone uses the latest release. That's the point at which deprecation warnings start showing up everywhere. I think that's okay.


--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon



--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: definitions and aliasing

Shane McCarron
Okay - I was implementing this warning, and a side issue arose (shocking, I know).

We use @title on abbr and acronym to provide an expanded title for all matching abbr and acronyms.  Which is great.  When this appear in a dfn, the dfn also inherits their @title (e.g., <dfn><abbr title="My Long Term">MLT</abbr></dfn>).  I feel like this is a correct use of @title, and therefore should not require a warning.  I also feel like if people want to have aliases for this, they should do it using @lt on the dfn element.   Any objections to encouraging that behavior in the documentation?

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yeah - I didn't mean tip-of-tree.  But lots of people use the latest release.  And they do so in production documents, not just Editor's Drafts.

I like the idea of doing a warning on Title use when there is no @lt.  I will see about adding that.  I have an updated pull request.  Maybe I can squeeze it into that.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Robin Berjon <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 09/07/2015 23:35 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
Are people embedding a tip-of-tree ReSpec link?

Almost no one uses tip-of-tree. That's really only if you're working on ReSpec code, and even then you wouldn't use it for anything other than a test document — outside of a build it's way too slow.

But everyone uses the latest release. That's the point at which deprecation warnings start showing up everywhere. I think that's okay.


--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon



--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.



--
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: definitions and aliasing

Tab Atkins Jr.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We use @title on abbr and acronym to provide an expanded title for all
> matching abbr and acronyms.  Which is great.  When this appear in a dfn, the
> dfn also inherits their @title (e.g., <dfn><abbr title="My Long
> Term">MLT</abbr></dfn>).  I feel like this is a correct use of @title, and
> therefore should not require a warning.  I also feel like if people want to
> have aliases for this, they should do it using @lt on the dfn element.   Any
> objections to encouraging that behavior in the documentation?

No objection here.

(And I'm gonna remove Bikeshed's warning about this soon, so people
can use title='' for what it's intended for without Bikeshed
complaining.  The BS ecosystem has fixed itself, I believe.)

~TJ