Editorial: fix link to Navigator and update Respec URL#483
Merged
Conversation
The update tells ReSpec to look for Navigator in the HTML spec. It also updates the URL of the ReSpec script. Unrelated, the update also reduces the information provided for the boilerplate text to a minimum by asking Respec to fetch the group info itself.
markafoltz
approved these changes
Oct 7, 2020
Contributor
|
Thank you @tidoust! |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The update tells ReSpec to look for Navigator in the HTML spec. It also updates the URL of the ReSpec script. Coupled with #482, this should fix ReSpec errors.
Unrelated, the update also reduces the information provided for the boilerplate text to a minimum by asking Respec to fetch the group info itself.
Note the
xreflist will need to be completed once the Presentation API starts using automatic cross-ref linking features instead of maintaining definitions in a separate "Terminology" section as currently done. Relying on the automatic cross-ref linking feature is recommended to detect cross-references to concepts that groups actually did not plan to export to other specs, as well as terms that may no longer exist in other specs. I'll prepare another PR for that.Preview | Diff