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

Preserve rfc section links #3956

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 25, 2024
Merged

Conversation

ralfhandl
Copy link
Contributor

@ralfhandl ralfhandl commented Jul 15, 2024

Fixes #3863

See for example

Unless specified otherwise, all properties that are URIs MAY be relative references as defined by [RFC3986] Section 4.2.

@ralfhandl ralfhandl added the editorial Wording and stylistic issues label Jul 15, 2024
@ralfhandl ralfhandl added script Pull requests that update Bash or JavaScript code javascript Pull requests that update Javascript code labels Jul 23, 2024
@ralfhandl ralfhandl marked this pull request as ready for review July 23, 2024 13:46
@ralfhandl ralfhandl requested review from a team as code owners July 23, 2024 13:46
@ralfhandl ralfhandl requested a review from handrews July 23, 2024 13:48
@ralfhandl ralfhandl removed the script Pull requests that update Bash or JavaScript code label Jul 23, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@mikekistler mikekistler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good. 👍

Copy link
Member

@handrews handrews left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Minor comments, but I'm fine with this going in.

Comment on lines +277 to +282
//TODO: unconventional references to RFCs in 3.0.4 and 3.1.1, for example
// [RFC3986 §5.1.2 – 5.1.4](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5.1.2)
// RFC6570 [mentions](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6570.html#section-2.4.2)
// [are not](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#appendix-A)
// [special behavior](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1866#section-8.2.1)
// [RFC6570 considers to be _undefined_](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6570#section-2.3)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm entirely fine with making these more normal rather than working around them in the build script.

Comment on lines +292 to +293
//TODO: non-link mentions of RFCs in 3.0.4 and 3.1.1, for example
// RFC3986's definition of [reserved](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#section-2.2)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also fine with these being made more typical.

Comment on lines -311 to +329
if (Math.abs(delta)>1) console.warn(delta,line);
// if (Math.abs(delta)>1) console.warn(delta,line);
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Any particular reason to keep this line as a comment instead of delete?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reverence for @MikeRalphson 😄

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will remove them in a future PR

@ralfhandl ralfhandl merged commit 465fcb3 into OAI:main Jul 25, 2024
2 checks passed
@ralfhandl ralfhandl deleted the preserve-rfc-section-links branch July 25, 2024 16:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
editorial Wording and stylistic issues javascript Pull requests that update Javascript code
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Preserve section links in ReSpec output
3 participants