Microsyntax for "abstract-op" links? #4376
Labels
Comments
|
With speced/respec-web-services#207, we made |
|
That only works for links to outside of the spec, but not for links inside the spec itself I believe. The following micro-spec illustrates it as it triggers a linking error. <!doctype html>
<html>
<title>Element definition</title>
<script class="remove">
var respecConfig = {
specStatus: "base",
shortName: "foo",
editors: [{name: "foo"}],
};
</script>
<script src="https://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<section>
<dfn class="abstract-op">define an algorithm locally</dfn>
[= define an algorithm locally =]
</section>
</body>
</html> |
|
Ah, that makes sense. |
dontcallmedom
added a commit
to dontcallmedom/respec
that referenced
this issue
Apr 26, 2023
dontcallmedom
added a commit
to dontcallmedom/respec
that referenced
this issue
Apr 26, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Right now, when using the
[= =]microsyntax for links, it only works if the target is adfndefinition; I think this makes sense when there exists a dedicated microsyntax for other types of definitions (e.g.{{ }}), especially when these other types are of a different nature (i.e. more code than prose).But the type
abstract-opis more on the prose side and doesn't have a microsyntax, so I think it should be possible to use[= =]links for them; the alternative would be to use the microsyntax that bikeshed uses for them[$ $].The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: