CSS spec references show as "Unknown specification"

[andreubotella]

Summary

It used to be that CSS spec references pointed to the consistently-down official drafts.csswg.org website. Recently (see w3c/csswg-drafts#7712), a new mirror for the CSS Editor's Drafts was set up in https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts, which builds the specs automatically using Github Actions and Github Pages, and the links to CSS specs in browser-compat-data were updated to use it in mdn/browser-compat-data#17747 and mdn/browser-compat-data#17802.

However, currently all references to CSS specs, which use this new mirror, show up as "Unknown specification", apparently because this new mirror isn't in the browser-specs NPM package, and there seems to be resistance to adding it (w3c/browser-specs#704). So maybe this should be worked around in yari instead.

URL

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/overflow for example

Reproduction steps

Scroll down to the "Specifications" heading.

Expected behavior

"CSS Overflow Module Level 3 / #propdef-overflow"

Actual behavior

"Unknown specification / #propdef-overflow"

Device

Desktop

Browser

Chrome

Browser version

Stable

Operating system

Linux

Screenshot

No response

Anything else?

cc @sideshowbarker @queengooborg

Validations

• I have read the Community Participation Guidelines.
• I have verified that there isn't already an issue that reports the same bug to avoid creating a duplicate.
• I have checked that this is a concrete bug. For Q&A open a GitHub Discussion.

[sideshowbarker]

It looks like we now have an upstream solution, per w3c/browser-specs#704 (comment):

Browser-specs now lists https://w3c.github.io/csswg-drafts/ URLs for CSS specs under the nightly.alternateUrls.

So it looks like we can fix this by updating our browser-specs client/consumer code to check the nightly.alternateUrls value in addition to the nightly and nightly.url values.

[meyerweb]

Sorry if I’ve overlooked something obvious but do we have a fix for this ready to go? It’s kind of a bad look, even if all the links do still seem to work.

[sideshowbarker]

Hi @meyerweb

Sorry if I’ve overlooked something obvious but do we have a fix for this ready to go? It’s kind of a bad look, even if all the links do still seem to work.

Yes, there’s a fix at #7262 that’s ready to go. Hopefully we can get it merged very soon