Markup: update `es6num` comments in Section 25

[ryzokuken]

The different sub-sections inside Section 25 are annotated using es6num markup comments like <!-- es6num="25.2" -->. However, these comments weren't updated (and added to new sub-sections) when the Async variants of existing entries were added.

Should these comments be updated/added wherever necessary?

[ljharb]

No, these should never be updated or added - they’re set in stone to preserve ES6-era links.

[ljharb]

No, these should never be updated or added - they’re set in stone to preserve ES6-era links.

[jmdyck]

they’re set in stone to preserve ES6-era links

I'm pretty sure that's not the case: they could be removed without breaking links from any era.

If the editors would prefer them gone (to avoid such questions in the future), I can submit a PR.

[jmdyck]

they’re set in stone to preserve ES6-era links

I'm pretty sure that's not the case: they could be removed without breaking links from any era.

If the editors would prefer them gone (to avoid such questions in the future), I can submit a PR.

[ryzokuken]

No, these should never be updated or added - they’re set in stone to preserve ES6-era links.

Making appropriate changes in #1234

[ryzokuken]

No, these should never be updated or added - they’re set in stone to preserve ES6-era links.

Making appropriate changes in #1234

[ljharb]

No, links from es6 must work for all eternity. Cool urls never change.

[ljharb]

No, links from es6 must work for all eternity. Cool urls never change.

[ryzokuken]

@ljharb thanks for the clarification. Closing this in that case, made appropriate changes in #1234.

[ryzokuken]

@ljharb thanks for the clarification. Closing this in that case, made appropriate changes in #1234.

[jmdyck]

No, links from es6 must work for all eternity.

Sure, but why do you think that has anything to do with these comments?

Do you think the ecmarkup process looks at them and turns them into anchors? (It doesn't.)

[jmdyck]

No, links from es6 must work for all eternity.

Sure, but why do you think that has anything to do with these comments?

Do you think the ecmarkup process looks at them and turns them into anchors? (It doesn't.)

[ljharb]

I did think that, yes. If it doesn’t, then I’m not sure why we bother keeping the comments at all.

[ljharb]

I did think that, yes. If it doesn’t, then I’m not sure why we bother keeping the comments at all.

[ryzokuken]

I understand why you'd want to remove the comments altogether, they need to be updated and added and add extra layers without doing anything meaningful, but for one, they help people navigate. When you're neck deep in markup, an indicator telling which section you're currently on helps.

[ryzokuken]

I understand why you'd want to remove the comments altogether, they need to be updated and added and add extra layers without doing anything meaningful, but for one, they help people navigate. When you're neck deep in markup, an indicator telling which section you're currently on helps.

[ljharb]

The clause ID does a better job of that though.

[ljharb]

The clause ID does a better job of that though.

[ryzokuken]

Just noticed, you're right. It does. So, should I just remove all the comments?

[ryzokuken]

Just noticed, you're right. It does. So, should I just remove all the comments?

[ljharb]

The editors discussed this; and decided to get rid of them (see #1237)

[ljharb]

The editors discussed this; and decided to get rid of them (see #1237)