W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2014

Re: Thinking about cross references and ReSpec

From: Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 14:15:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMK=o4fg4BchTXUn78QEQ3zXxw-niedhhrKv47-nOZXnoLcRwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>
>>>> The hard part is getting the data. Hooking it into ReSpec oughtn't be
>>> difficult, unless I'm missing something.
>>
>>
>> Good. (I haven't thought about this at all, so I'll take your word for
>> it).
>>
>
> Yeah, I looked at the code for how we talk to SpecRef and it seems pretty
> straightforward to do a similar integration into the place where we are
> creating the list of cross references we need to look up.
>

Yeah, the lookup isn't the part I was worried about. It's the potential
syntax changes I'm more concerned with.

As an aside, I note that the SpecRef lookup (in ReSpec biblio.js) uses
> https GET.  I would change that to POST so that if there is a huge query we
> don't overflow URL length limits.  I will create an issue about it.
>

The effective limit is around 2000 chars[1] which should give us over a
hundred references. Let's think about fixing it when we cross it, no?

--tobie

---
[1]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/417184
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 12:16:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:20 UTC