- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 15:10:05 -0500
- To: "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOk_reH8idWXDNKEL64JcZo07OWA6WAZZYVWy=gB+Lh0sALHFQ@mail.gmail.com>
There was an earlier thread where one side-discussion was about cross references. Basically, Bikeshed and Shepherd have a system for doing cross-document references to things like terms. I like the concept of this, but of course Bikeshed and Shepherd are document processors, not client-side magic like ReSpec, so.... I have this *idea*. Or maybe it is an concept that could be turned into an idea if I expand upon it. Something like this: - Adopt the Bikeshed syntax for definitions. This is fairly rich, and is well documented at [1]. - Define a 'protocol' that ReSpec can use to query / update a definition service with the data from a and dfn elements, respectively. - Provide a reference implementation of a service that supports the protocol. - Add code to the def / a module of ReSpec that uses the protocol to communicate with a document-defined end point. So in theory a family of documents could coordinate their term definitions by all pointing to the same service endpoint. In the PFWG we have a number of documents where this would be a huge help. I imagine if such a service were available, a lot of other groups that rely upon ReSpec would find it much easier to reference definitions where they live rather than importing them. There are some obvious flaws in a design like this (overhead, speed, fragility, exposure to DoS). But I don't feel the risks are much worse than the current specref use. We would need some sort of registry in the reference implementation to help control where updates can come in from, etc. I know that some of us (e.g., me) work off line. In that mode, all of these sorts of things fall down. But as long as they fall down gracefully and consistently, I feel like it is okay. Anyway - thoughts? [1] https://github.com/tabatkins/bikeshed/blob/master/docs/definitions-autolinks.md P.S. Tobie, I know that you were talking about something in this space for Q4... and maybe this is what you are already thinking about. If so, consider this brainstorming / requirements gathering.
Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2014 20:10:32 UTC