Re: [w3c/ServiceWorker] Editorial: Revise reference links with bikeshed (PR #1762)

@mkruisselbrink commented on this pull request.



> @@ -88,6 +88,12 @@ spec: ecma-262; urlPrefix: https://tc39.es/ecma262/
             text: statement
             text: declaration
 
+spec: html; urlPrefix: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/

As https://speced.github.io/bikeshed/#custom-dfns sort of hints at, the "anchors" block exists to link to specs that are not in the autolinking database. If a spec is in the autolinking database (as w3c specs all should be) you should never need to use it. You can use an explicit `<l spec='html'>` indication to link to unexported definitions (although you should probably still work with the target spec to make sure the definition does get exported). Maybe link-defaults also work to explicitly link to an unexported definition. But in either case using anchors to link to specs means for one that you won't get any bikeshed warnings if the destination doesn't exist (or stops to exist), and in general just makes the spec way less maintainable.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/pull/1762#discussion_r2014691784
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3c/ServiceWorker/pull/1762/review/2718110283@github.com>