- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:58:16 -0700
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, W3C Public TTWG <public-tt@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:26:56 +0200, Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org> wrote: >>> FWIW: the HTML reference is to the WHATWG version also, so we should >>> be consistent. >> >> Right. we should be consistent. >> The HTML reference to WHATWG version is the same issue. >> It should be also update. >> >> as I said earlier, if we start having diffs from the CG draft and the WG >> draft, it may be a nightmare to synchronize those documents by updating refs >> and other stuff for each TR publication. > > I believe bikeshed (the tool that generates the spec) is able to switch to > stable references for TR publications (+cc Tab Atkins). No manual labor > should be necessary. In fact TR publications for WDs should be automated > also, but is not yet done for WebVTT. See > https://github.com/w3c/webvtt/issues/205 Yes, Bikeshed can switch between "current" and "snapshot" versions of a single spec. WHATWG HTML vs the W3C fork is a different situation, however, and Bikeshed takes the explicit position that you should be linking to the actual HTML spec, as written by WHATWG. You can link to the W3C fork as a biblio reference with `[HTML5]` or `[HTML51]`, but all autolinks go to the actual spec. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2016 20:59:04 UTC