- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 09:22:42 -0700
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu>
- Cc: "public-rdf-star@w3.org" <public-rdf-star@w3.org>
> On Jun 1, 2021, at 9:08 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@ercim.eu> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I mentioned during the last call that my PRs got validation errors that I didn't understand. They are not in the source document, but in the HTML produced by Respec. > > I dug a little, and found two different causes for these errors, which I submitted as issues on the Respec repo: > > - https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/3584 > > - https://github.com/w3c/respec/issues/3585 > > The first one seems to be a Respec bug, and will hopefully get fixed eventually (and it generates only warnings). > > The second one generates errors (IDs that are both an empty string, and duplicates!), and is actually github's fault: the problems are in the HTML description of issues, that we include in our report. We can get rid of them by solving the issues and removing them from the doc ;) For issues that are meant to stay longer, I'll try to massage the issue description to get rid of the errors. In the JSON-LD spec, when referencing issues, I would typically provide a body with a brief description of the issue, so that markup contained in the issue wouldn’t interfere with processing the ReSpec document. Arguably, if ReSpec is going to allow including the leading comment from the GitHub issue, it should be sanitized, but this may be difficult in practice. Gregg > best > > <OpenPGP_0x9D1EDAEEEF98D438.asc>
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2021 16:25:12 UTC