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

Source specification section from BCD; improve rendering #1146

Closed
Elchi3 opened this issue Jan 10, 2021 · 5 comments
Closed

Source specification section from BCD; improve rendering #1146

Elchi3 opened this issue Jan 10, 2021 · 5 comments
Assignees
Labels
MDN:Project Anything related to larger core projects on MDN

Comments

@Elchi3
Copy link
Member

Elchi3 commented Jan 10, 2021

Over on BCD we've introduced spec_url:

The spec_url property is a URL or an array of URLs, each of which is for a specific part of a specification in which this feature is defined. Each URL must contain a fragment identifier (e.g. https://tc39.es/proposal-promise-allSettled/#sec-promise.allsettled).

It is populated for all javascript.* features and we're working on populating it for html.* features. At some point all BCD features will have a spec_url property.

Further, the spec_url data in BCD is carefully reviewed and we make sure it actually contains relevant specs and not abandoned or outdated ones.

Therefore, I think the "Specifications" section on MDN pages should use this information to render a specification table (or specification section as opposed to a table as recommended by @nschonni in #1121 (comment). That way we no longer need to maintain it in two places.

cc'ing @sideshowbarker with whom I worked on this a lot.

@chrisdavidmills
Copy link
Contributor

Totally 100% on board with this @Elchi3 ! Let's move forward with a porposal for what the table should look like exactly that we can comment and interate on, and then once we are agreed, let's create lists of pages to migrate over the spec tables to BCD and then replace with a macro call, and get the community to help with the migration, like we did with the original compat table migration project ;-)

/me Excited.

@Elchi3
Copy link
Member Author

Elchi3 commented Jan 20, 2021

@hamishwillee has great feedback about this proposal:

including spec info in the BCD looks great; though of course there are a whole bunch of things that aren't and never will be in BCD that are still relevant to docs (and in particular this is true of HTTP headers where the definition of "supported" is unclear).

Imo, this is something to keep in mind but "making sense of support info for HTTP" is a BCD/MDN issue that exists whether we move forward with this spec_url proposal or not, so it is not really blocking.

@Ryuno-Ki
Copy link
Collaborator

Let's move forward with a porposal for what the table should look like exactly that we can comment and interate on

Sounds like a design ticket (linking to this one)

and then once we are agreed, let's create lists of pages to migrate over the spec tables to BCD

A second issue?

and then replace with a macro call, and get the community to help with the migration, like we did with the original compat table migration project ;-)

A third one? Or perhaps a blog article on Mozilla Hacks?

This issue here could serve as a meta issue then?

@hamishwillee
Copy link
Collaborator

@Elchi3 Re #1146 (comment) - agree, non blocking.

Not really a discussion for here, but if we're going to include spec info I start to think that the BCD should be broader than just things where highlighting compatibility makes sense. For example, I'd like to have all those missing HTTP headers so that I also get the spec info, and so that I can have an explicit place in BCD where I show that the omission of the compatibility info is deliberate.

@Rumyra Rumyra added needs triage Triage needed by staff and/or partners. Automatically applied when an issue is opened. MDN:Project Anything related to larger core projects on MDN and removed needs triage Triage needed by staff and/or partners. Automatically applied when an issue is opened. labels Jun 7, 2021
@sideshowbarker
Copy link
Collaborator

Closing this as either entirely or largely having been completed at this point.

@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 17, 2022
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
MDN:Project Anything related to larger core projects on MDN
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants