- From: David Browning via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2019 15:24:16 +0000
- To: public-dxwg-wg@w3.org
Last week I "fixed" the missing links in the sections that were being changed at the time (and added `<code>` tags where I was changing something, but not a general sweep of across the document. I suspected then that we'd got somewhat inconsistent and needed to look across the whole but didn't get a chance to look at the rest of the doc on both `<code>` and link usage. Thanks for doing that @andrea-perego ! Adding the '<code>` markups do make them stand out. The 2014 spec also used /ns/ references in **Domain:** and **Range** entries, but I think that's not particularly helpful. (**See Also** consistently has intra-document links). On a quick look at the editors draft there are probably a few other stray references to the /ns/ in other parts of the text, I think (such as some of the intro paragraphs for each class.) My question is - are links to either /ns/ (essentially the pdf file) ever really useful ? It only ever returns the whole file (for me, anyway) whereas a link into a _relevant_ fragment of a doc is much more useful. For me, I'd rather we used useful links where we can find them. What do other people think? [For what it's worth I see multiple different behaviours across recommendations] To keep it simple though, I agree with @dr-shorthair's proposal that we use internal document links in all cases except the headline **RDF Class:** or **RDF Property:** texts in the subsections of Chapter 6, mainly because there's little else to link it too.... I'd propose we merge this branch, and then do a sweep to add the links. I'm happy to do that, though it'll be next week before i have the time - I'll raise a (presumptive) issue so we don't forget... -- GitHub Notification of comment by davebrowning Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/669#issuecomment-455210964 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2019 15:24:17 UTC