W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2016

Re: Some missing docs?

From: Rick Byers <rbyers@google.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:39:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFUtAY_0DA63wVDbDM8pMxGBSi2BJ5teVAwZG8yBerc-G3wmJw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@halindrome.com>
Cc: spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
Thanks.

And now I've found the thread
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/2016AprJun/0108.html> 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 <shane@halindrome.com> 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" <rbyers@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> The ReSpec user's guide
>> <https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjh0q3Mk93NAhVl3IMKHXy4CR0QFggjMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Frespec-docs%2Fguide.html&usg=AFQjCNH52Iah4HkL_ENYsLQ6qeH0SBODNA&sig2=48W533_fpE1Etvzsb-IHQg&bvm=bv.126130881,d.amc> 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
>> <https://github.com/w3c/respec/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
>> <https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZcAfTUz-uKgJ:https://w3c.github.io/respec-docs/guide.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2016 20:40:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 5 July 2016 20:40:36 UTC