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

Wrong spec name for Page Visibility? #223

Open
xfq opened this issue Apr 18, 2018 · 1 comment
Open

Wrong spec name for Page Visibility? #223

xfq opened this issue Apr 18, 2018 · 1 comment

Comments

@xfq
Copy link
Member

xfq commented Apr 18, 2018

In mobile/performance.html, the name of the Page Visibility spec in the table is "Page Visibility (Second Edition)". That document should be the second edition of the first level:

But https://www.w3.org/TR/page-visibility/ points to (first edition of) the second level...

@tidoust
Copy link
Member

tidoust commented Apr 18, 2018

Grmpf. The info in the W3C API and the implementation info that exists in Chrome Platform Status and in Can I Use are all about the first level, indeed.

The problem is that the shortlink URL now redirects to the second level (for which we don't really have implementation info) and there does not seem to be any shortlink that points to the latest version of the first level...

We could:

  1. Use the page-visibility-2 shortname. Good thing here is that we'd be more future-looking, targeting the more recent version. But then the implementation info becomes slightly invalid (in particular, Edge does not seem to ship the onvisibilitychange event handler yet. Also, this problem is likely to occur again for other specs.
  2. Always link to the dated URL returned by the W3C API instead of to the shortlink URL.
  3. Add links to a) the dated URL when the roadmap is generated, b) the latest version, c) the Editor's Draft (Consider adding link to ED to generated table #107) in the generated table. But then, that would perhaps overload the spec column a bit with hard-to-understand info

None of this seems entirely satisfactory. Any other idea?

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants