Editorial: update the standard for the WHATWG move #193
Conversation
|
The build will fail until we run spec-factory to update the Makefile, etc.; that will be a separate pull request. (Which we can merge before this one.) |
|
Running spec-factory would be good because then PR Preview works and we can see what the document ends up looking like, right? |
|
Yeah, I'll try to land that first, but I think that depends on db.json. |
|
Looks fine on inspection, but a preview would be nice. :) |
* Use the WHATWG template. * Add an Acknowledgments section and IPR statement. * Sentence-case all headings. * Add missing example IDs and suppress a warning about "optional" being used in an example. * Minor fixes to the introductory example to work well with WHATWG styling.
|
I think a preview is not possible because PR preview is using the old config file against the new spec, or something like that, and thus fails the whole process when it can't generate the old spec in order to create diffs. In lieu of that I've set up a preview here: https://boom-bath.glitch.me/urlpattern-preview.html Editor review especially appreciated for changes to spec.bs. |
| @@ -426,7 +357,7 @@ A [=component=] has an associated <dfn for=component>group name list</dfn>, a [= | |||
| 1. If |options|'s [=options/ignore case=] is true then set |flags| to "`vi`". | |||
| 1. Otherwise set |flags| to "`v`" | |||
| 1. Let |regular expression| be [$RegExpCreate$](|regular expression string|, |flags|). If this throws an exception, catch it, and throw a {{TypeError}}. | |||
| <p class="note allow-2119">The specification uses regular expressions to perform all matching, but this is not required. Implementations are free to perform matching directly against the [=/part list=] when possible; e.g. when there are no custom regexp matching groups. If there are custom regular expressions, however, its important that they should be immediately evaluated in the [=compile a component=] algorithm so an error can be thrown if they are invalid. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should seems to be just removed. Don't we need an alternative word?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for the careful review! I think it is OK in this case actually. "It is important that they be (verb phrase)" is acceptable.
|
The standard is live! https://urlpattern.spec.whatwg.org/ |
Part of #190. See also whatwg/sg#215.
I'd like editor review and also @annevk review if possible.
💥 Error: 400 Bad Request 💥
PR Preview failed to build. (Last tried on Oct 18, 2023, 5:54 AM UTC).
More
PR Preview relies on a number of web services to run. There seems to be an issue with the following one:
🚨 CSS Spec Preprocessor - CSS Spec Preprocessor is the web service used to build Bikeshed specs.
🔗 Related URL
If you don't have enough information above to solve the error by yourself (or to understand to which web service the error is related to, if any), please file an issue.