W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: announcing normative ECMAScript specification in HTML

From: T.J. Crowder <tj@crowdersoftware.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 22:00:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH65x-zMXvhKMpQzdr+MxN=L-v_DVPCtw2rE68hqyB_=2SDPZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, public-script-coord@w3.org, Istvan Sebestyen <istvan@ecma-international.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Hi,

That's fanTAStic about finally having a normative, deeply-linkable, HTML
edition of the spec.

On 24 May 2012 19:13, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:

>
> On May 24, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>
>
> Yay HTML, welcome to the nineties! ;-) We usually need to link to the
> latest version however, any chance of getting that?
>
>
> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm
>
> is a gateway page that will always contain links to both the HTML and PDF
> version of the latest edition
>

Yes, but given the significant (and welcome) effort to keep section numbers
the same version-on-version, rather than having all links to 5.1 rot (e.g.,
become out of date) as of 5.2, it would be very useful to have
pseudo-targets that represent:

* The latest 5.x

* The latest, period

So for instance:

http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-4.3.2

...links to Section 4.3.2 of Edition 5.1, but

http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5/#sec-4.3.2

...links to Section 4.3.2 of whatever the latest 5.x is, and

http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/#sec-4.3.2

...links to Section 4.3.2 of whatever the *current* standard is.

Separately, ideally, with not just section names, but
semantically-intelligent targets. For instance, while it would be nice if

http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/#sec-4.3.2

...always linked to the current Section 4.3.2, even better would be if

http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/#primitive-value

...always linked to the description of "primitive value" (the current
Section 4.3.2).

This is entirely "doable." A concept is unlikely to go entirely away
(although terminology changes), and if it does, a link to a brief
description of the fact it went away (or changed) would be useful.

If TC39 needs volunteers to come up with the set of
semantically-intelligent targets, sign me up.

Best,
--
T.J. Crowder
tj / crowder software / com
www / crowder software / com
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 21:01:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:06 UTC