-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22.5k
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
Comments
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. |
@hamishwillee has great feedback about this proposal:
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. |
Sounds like a design ticket (linking to this one)
A second issue?
A third one? Or perhaps a blog article on Mozilla Hacks? This issue here could serve as a meta issue then? |
@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. |
Closing this as either entirely or largely having been completed at this point. |
Over on BCD we've introduced
spec_url
:It is populated for all
javascript.*
features and we're working on populating it forhtml.*
features. At some point all BCD features will have aspec_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data in BCD is carefully reviewed and we make sure it actually contains relevant specs and not abandoned or outdated ones.Therefore, I think the "Specifications" section on MDN pages should use this information to render a specification table (or specification section as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.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: