Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
Revert adoption of httpwg.org URLs
See original GitHub issuehttps://github.com/tobie/specref/pull/539 added a hardcoded map from a number of RFCs to their (much more nicely rendered) equivalent in httpwg.org space, but without much discussion or background.
While the improved rendering is certainly valuable, I’m not sure if using a WG-specific domain without clear institutional backing is necessarily the right thing to do by default for links that may end up encoded in formally approved standards.
It’s also impacting our browser-specs tool which consumes data from specref to collect metadata about specifications, as we’re considering adding some of these RFCs to our list; we can easily override this on our end, but since the validity of the specref data was at least not obvious to us, we thought we would bring this up for discussion here first.
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 2 years ago
- Comments:13 (4 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
noting an additional dimension here from the browser-specs discussion: recent RFC are published using a more modern format on rfc-editor.org - so maybe that would be a better default than datatracker ones (for non httpwg.org urls in this case).
submitted #675 re rfc-editor.org URLs.
I’m no longer convinced that reverting the use of httpwg.org is the right approach (per the priorities of the constituencies as @tobie pointed out), so closing this issue.