Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[/xref] "abstract-op" definitions misreported as "dfn" #4509

Open
tabatkins opened this issue Aug 11, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

[/xref] "abstract-op" definitions misreported as "dfn" #4509

tabatkins opened this issue Aug 11, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@tabatkins
Copy link

Sorry, I'm reporting the bug with respec.org/xref here because there's no obvious place for bug reports linked from the webpage.

If you search for, say, https://respec.org/xref/?term=clear+cookies+for+origin, the website pulls up the definition and classifies it as "dfn". But in WebRef it's labeled as "abstract-op": https://github.com/w3c/webref/blob/main/ed/dfns/clear-site-data.json#L252. This caused a coworker some confusion today, as they tried to use a dfn autolink in Bikeshed for this and it failed to link.

I suspect you might have a hardcoded list of recognized definition types, and report "dfn" for anything you don't recognize? If so, it would be nice to remove that; the list of definition types might grow in the future, and the less places we have to update that, the better. (Ideally just WebRef and Bikeshed/ReSpec themselves.)

@tabatkins tabatkins added the bug label Aug 11, 2023
@sidvishnoi
Copy link
Member

We did it intentionally, but not sure if it was the best way (speced/respec-web-services#202 (comment)). I'll see if we can keep them as separate without breaking existing specs. It's possible it might not break anymore thanks to https://github.com/w3c/respec/pull/4439.
(Sorry for late reply)

@tabatkins
Copy link
Author

The current behavior is actively broken already, since it's telling people to write their autolink with a particular type which will not work. It looks like the ReSpec issue just decided to do the exact wrong thing, and I'm not sure why.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants