[csswg] overflow-3 and overflow-4 and unleveled URLs

# Alan Stearns (8 days ago)

Hey all,

We currently have a problem with our overflow drafts. We’ve marked overflow-4 as the current work, and it therefore inhabits the unleveled spec directory. Unfortunately, it’s still a diff spec. So URLs that pointed to various things in the old spec now go to less-than-useful places in the diff spec.

Specifically, WHATWG had a link to the overflow property itself using the unversioned directory:

drafts.csswg.org/css-overflow/#overflow

That anchor doesn’t yet exist in overflow-4, so that URL is no longer cool.

I think that we should (in general, going forward) ensure that anchors from a level X spec are replicated in a level X+1 spec before we declare X+1 the current work and have it take over the unleveled directory.

I think we have two choices on what to do with overflow right now:

A. Update the current overflow-4 draft so that it’s no longer a diff spec, and contains all the appropriate anchors and content from overflow-3. B. Swap directories around in our repo so that overflow-3 inhabits the unleveled directory.

If I can get a volunteer to do A in a timely fashion, that would be great. If no one volunteers over the next week, I believe we should do B to fix up links until A happens.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Alan

Contact us to advertise here
# Tab Atkins Jr. (8 days ago)

fantasai and I talked about this a little while ago. Previously, we had to manually maintain an htaccess file to handle the unlevelled URLs, but now it's done thru Shepherd really easily. As such, the best folder design seems to be to have all of them be correctly leveled, and let Shepherd handle the unleveled redirecting itself. This is a single big file move in the the version control, but from then on there aren't any more, unlike the current design where there's regularly a shift as we move to new versions.

So we should be doing:

C. Rename overflow to overflow-4, then denote in Shepherd that level 3 is the current version.

~TJ

# Florian Rivoal (7 days ago)

.

On October 5, 2017 9:47:55 AM GMT+09:00, "Tab Atkins Jr." jackalmage@gmail.com wrote:

So we should be doing:

C. Rename overflow to overflow-4, then denote in Shepherd that level 3 is the current version.

~TJ

This seems best, and will also make git archeology easier, when you what to go further back that the last directory rename.

Also agreeing that for overflow, 3 seems better then 4 as the current version.


  • Florian Rivoal Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity
# Tab Atkins Jr. (7 days ago)

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Florian Rivoal florian@rivoal.net wrote:

On October 5, 2017 9:47:55 AM GMT+09:00, "Tab Atkins Jr." jackalmage@gmail.com wrote:

So we should be doing:

C. Rename overflow to overflow-4, then denote in Shepherd that level 3 is the current version.

This seems best, and will also make git archeology easier, when you what to go further back that the last directory rename.

Precisely; the switcheroo we do right now seems calculated to make git archeology as hard as possible for as little benefit as possible. This one switch will be annoying for a bunch of specs, but it'll fix things going forward.

I'm happy to do the change if the WG is cool with it.

# Alan Stearns (3 days ago)

On 10/6/17, 12:49 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." jackalmage@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
> On October 5, 2017 9:47:55 AM GMT+09:00, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>So we should be doing:
>>
>>C. Rename `overflow` to `overflow-4`, then denote in Shepherd that
>>level 3 is the current version.
>
> This seems best, and will also make git archeology easier, when you what to go further back that the last directory rename.

Precisely; the switcheroo we do right now seems calculated to make git
archeology as hard as possible for as little benefit as possible. This
one switch will be annoying for a bunch of specs, but it'll fix things
going forward.

I'm happy to do the change if the WG is cool with it.

This sounds good to me, and Peter was OK with the change when I asked on IRC. He did want to check the draft server to make sure there weren’t any assumptions about unleveled directories. Peter – have you had a chance to look at this?

Thanks,

Alan

# Peter Linss (3 days ago)

On Oct 9, 2017, at 6:01 PM, Alan Stearns stearns@adobe.com wrote:

On 10/6/17, 12:49 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." jackalmage@gmail.com wrote:

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Florian Rivoal florian@rivoal.net wrote:

On October 5, 2017 9:47:55 AM GMT+09:00, "Tab Atkins Jr." jackalmage@gmail.com wrote: So we should be doing:

C. Rename overflow to overflow-4, then denote in Shepherd that level 3 is the current version.

This seems best, and will also make git archeology easier, when you what to go further back that the last directory rename.

Precisely; the switcheroo we do right now seems calculated to make git archeology as hard as possible for as little benefit as possible. This one switch will be annoying for a bunch of specs, but it'll fix things going forward.

I'm happy to do the change if the WG is cool with it.

This sounds good to me, and Peter was OK with the change when I asked on IRC. He did want to check the draft server to make sure there weren’t any assumptions about unleveled directories. Peter – have you had a chance to look at this?

Yep, the server is fine with it.

P

# Tab Atkins Jr. (3 days ago)

K, Peter asked me to do the renames on a mercurial checkout (Mercurial history actually tracks renames, and git doesn't care), so I'll take care of this later today, or tomorrow if I get overly busy.

~TJ

# Tab Atkins Jr. (a day ago)

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalmage@gmail.com wrote:

K, Peter asked me to do the renames on a mercurial checkout (Mercurial history actually tracks renames, and git doesn't care), so I'll take care of this later today, or tomorrow if I get overly busy.

Done and pushed. Should show up on the git side of the mirror shortly, hopefully. (If not, Peter, please help?)

~TJ

Want more features?

Request early access to our private beta of readable email premium.