Please volunteer to maintain the HTML version of the spec

Allen Wirfs-Brock allen at wirfs-brock.com
Fri Apr 17 16:48:12 UTC 2015


On Apr 17, 2015, at 6:20 AM, Jason Orendorff wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Michael Dyck <jmdyck at ibiblio.org> wrote:
>> I'm interested.
> 
> OK, thanks. I'll get back to you next week. Unfortunately I'm not around today.

We should probably start by forking your repository and hosting it on https://github.com/tc39/ so it can be maintained as part of the official TC39 tool suite.

The other big thing we need to accomplish in the near future is to have an "official" html version that can be released as http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6/index.html   (I may be able to get Ecma to change the last node from "6" to "2015")
(See for example  http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/ and also see http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm and http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262-arch.htm )

> 
>>> Each time a new revision is published, some manual steps are required
>>> to map broken links to the right sections in the new document.
>> 
>> Do you mean that old 'es6-draft.html' URLs should resolve to the
>> corresponding section in the HTML version of the latest ES7+ draft? (In
>> which case, the latter would need to continue to support (remap) all the old
>> section-ids.) I wonder if people would find that surprising.
> 
> I hadn't considered it.
> 
> Given the use cases I know about (mostly es-discuss and in
> implementations' bug-tracking databases), I think it's better to do it
> the other way, so that ES6-era links continue to point to an ES6 spec.

I agree, also blog post and old tweets, etc...

> 
> Starting from scratch will not save a whole lot of work, though. The
> work required with each revision is mostly figuring out how to
> redirect section-ids that were newly changed in that revision, not
> maintaining the old redirects (which is at most some
> search-and-replace).

I could probably come up with a way to include permanent ids in section headings as  Word invisible fields. 

It would be a little more work for spec. editors (and somewhat bug prone: forgetting to include one, forgetting to change the id when copying a heading, etc) but would eliminate the need to maintain an external map.

Allen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20150417/86f7a506/attachment.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list