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

biblio.json file not updated in two years #190

Open
tabatkins opened this issue May 30, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

biblio.json file not updated in two years #190

tabatkins opened this issue May 30, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@tabatkins
Copy link

Currently, SpecRef relies on this repo's biblio.json file for its WICG references. Is this still meant to be up-to-date? If so, did an automatic process fall over, or did the manual updater person let it fall off their plate?

Alternately, should SpecRef be referring to something different, maybe WebRef? If so, we should retire this biblio.json file so nobody accidentally depends on it.

@marcoscaceres
Copy link
Contributor

marcoscaceres commented Jun 5, 2024

Yeah, I think it’s always been manually maintained (by random folks in the community). I wonder if we should deprecate it, specially if we can get the same (or better) data from WebRef.

@tidoust
Copy link
Contributor

tidoust commented Aug 26, 2024

Oh, I hadn't seen this issue. Specref already pulls data from browser-specs (the list of specs used in Webref), see related pull script. The script only adds WICG entries when they don't exist in WICG's biblio.json file. There are ~50 of them in practice (e.g., DIGITAL-GOODS), which tends to confirm that biblio.json is not up-to-date, or not meant to be comprehensive.

If the file isn't used for other purpose, it would be good to retire the file entirely. That would also simplify maintenance from a Specref perspective (the pull scripts don't handle well the case when a Specref entry that was contributed by browser-specs starts appearing in biblio.json afterwards).

I will make sure that all entries in biblio.json have a corresponding entry in browser-specs, and will prepare a PR against Specref to drop the related WICG pull script.

@tidoust
Copy link
Contributor

tidoust commented Aug 26, 2024

Here is a short comparison.

First, the entries that are still missing in browser-specs:

I'll add them to browser-specs.

Then, entries that are missing from browser-specs, but for which the underlying incubation was abandoned or moved somewhere else:

Specref entries should be manuallly updated to note deprecation.

And then, one entry known in browser-specs under a different name:

Specref's entry should be made an alias of the one in browser-specs.

Note: tests in Specref ensure that no entry ever gets removed. No risk of accidently removing an entry from Specref!

tidoust added a commit to tidoust/specref that referenced this issue Aug 26, 2024
Via WICG/admin#190

The `biblio.json` file in WICG's admin repository has been maintained
on and off in the past few years by random folks (including me). A few
specs have now been retired or have moved somewhere else, and many
active WICG specs do not appear in the list (for example, browser-specs
contributes ~50 WICG specs to Specref that are not in WICG's
`biblio.json` file). All in all, the list in browser-specs is a better
source for WICG specs.

This update stops pulling updates from WICG's `biblio.json` files,
making it possible to retire the file. New WICG specs will continue to
be reported through the script that pulls data from browser-specs.

This update also flags retired and obsoleted WICG specs in
`refs/wicg.json`, see short analysis in:
WICG/admin#190 (comment)

The script that looks at updates in browser-specs won't create entries
that already exist in `refs/wicg.json`. One consequence is that possible
updates to existing WICG specs listed in that file require manual
intervention for the time being. It may make sense to delete most
entries from `refs/wicg.json` (leaving only retired specs that do not
exist in browser-specs, and aliases that start with `WICG-`), and to
re-create them in `refs/browser-specs.json` by running the script that
pulls info from browser-specs once WICG entries have been deleted. Not
done here.
tidoust added a commit to tobie/specref that referenced this issue Aug 28, 2024
Via WICG/admin#190

The `biblio.json` file in WICG's admin repository has been maintained
on and off in the past few years by random folks (including me). A few
specs have now been retired or have moved somewhere else, and many
active WICG specs do not appear in the list (for example, browser-specs
contributes ~50 WICG specs to Specref that are not in WICG's
`biblio.json` file). All in all, the list in browser-specs is a better
source for WICG specs.

This update stops pulling updates from WICG's `biblio.json` files,
making it possible to retire the file. New WICG specs will continue to
be reported through the script that pulls data from browser-specs.

This update also flags retired and obsoleted WICG specs in
`refs/wicg.json`, see short analysis in:
WICG/admin#190 (comment)

The script that looks at updates in browser-specs won't create entries
that already exist in `refs/wicg.json`. One consequence is that possible
updates to existing WICG specs listed in that file require manual
intervention for the time being. It may make sense to delete most
entries from `refs/wicg.json` (leaving only retired specs that do not
exist in browser-specs, and aliases that start with `WICG-`), and to
re-create them in `refs/browser-specs.json` by running the script that
pulls info from browser-specs once WICG entries have been deleted. Not
done here.
tidoust added a commit to tidoust/admin that referenced this issue Aug 28, 2024
See motivation in WICG#190: the file is not up-to-date, browser-specs is a better
maintained source of specs (with scripts that report new WICG specs when they
are created), and browser-specs already contributes specs, including WICG
specs, to Specref.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants