- From: Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 14:15:44 +0200
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2014 12:16:12 UTC
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