Allow linking to fully qualified method name

[alvestrand]

In this page:

https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/WebIDL-Guide

we see

Similarly, to define the Request.clone() method, you'd write <dfn>Request.clone</dfn>().

but later:

<p data-dfn-for="Request">
The <dfn data-lt="clone()">clone</dfn> method.
The <dfn>url</dfn> attribute.
</p>

Are the parentheses supposed to be inside or outside the <dfn> or the link, or doesn't it matter?

[marcoscaceres]

I literally just send a fix for this today 🎉 Let me fix the wiki.

[marcoscaceres]

@alvestrand, so, you can just do:

<section data-dfn-for="Foo" data-link-for="Foo">
 <pre>
   interface Foo{
     void clone();
   };
  </pre>
 <dfn>clone()</dfn>
 <p>The <a>clone()</a>...</p>
</section>

And it will work. I realized I didn't actually add support for <dfn>Request.clone</dfn>() but that's not a nice way of defining things regardless.

I'm going to get ReSpec to automatically add "data-link-for=" to <sections> that have a "data-dfn-for"... but in a few days from now. That will make the whole thing much much much nicer to work with.

[marcoscaceres]

fixed idl above.

[marcoscaceres]

Btw, which spec are you fixing up? Im happy to help.

…

On 10 Jan 2017, at 7:46 pm, Harald Alvestrand ***@***.***> wrote: In this page: https://github.com/w3c/respec/wiki/WebIDL-Guide we see Similarly, to define the Request.clone() method, you'd write <dfn>Request.clone</dfn>(). but later: <p data-dfn-for="Request"> The <dfn data-lt="clone()">clone</dfn> method. The <dfn>url</dfn> attribute. </p> Are the parentheses supposed to be inside or outside the <dfn> or the link, or doesn't it matter? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[alvestrand]

Thanks - the question was whether <dfn>clone()<</dfn> works the same as <dfn>clone</dfn>() - the ambiguity still remains in the wiki.

I THINK the example with the parentheses outside is likely to be wrong, since there's only one of it and a dozen of the other, but I'd like to be sure.

WRT "what spec": I'm trying to fix errors in webrtc-stats - seems that dom has already fixed up webrtc-pc.
(in webrtc-stats, I'm quoting a piece of IDL from another spec; 4 out of 5 complaints are about that piece - I'd like to just say "this is IDL but don't bother linking it", but might resort to just putting dfns in the "defined elsewhere" section.)

[marcoscaceres]

Thanks - the question was whether clone()< works the same as clone()

It should work the same. If not, that's a bug.

• the ambiguity still remains in the wiki.

Actually, <dfn>Foo.bar()</dfn> doesn't work... fixing. What does work is just <dfn>foo()</dfn>

I THINK the example with the parentheses outside is likely to be wrong, since there's only one of it and a dozen of the other, but I'd like to be sure.

It's actually ok... it's for backwards compat.