Re: links broken in HTML basedef toc
My 2 cents... I believe the terms were added as clarifications of existing functionality or expectations, to support the narrative of those clarifications elsewhere, and those I'd consider in scope. Adding terms that are significant mostly to planned new features I'd consider more confusing than helpful as a TC addition. In a message dated 11/10/2016 2:49:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, ajo...@opengroup.org writes: hi Stephane, all Comments below > On 9 Nov 2016, at 21:19, Stephane Chazelas wrote: > > 2016-11-09 11:35:37 +, Andrew Josey: > [...] >> This does flag a question to me about whether adding new terms >> goes beyond the true scope of a TC ( one to discuss another >> time) > [...] > > Note that it's not only those terms. Some whole sections have been > added. Compare > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2013edition/basedefs/V1_chap04.html > and > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html > > And the text is different including the meaning. For instance, > I'm sure I've given links to the shell grammar to show > "for i; do" was not standard. And that link now shows it is > standard (if it points at the grammar at all). I would rather it > points to the original version of the spec I was refering to > at the time with a mention that that spec is now obsolete. > Indeed there new general concepts as well as definitions. >> The old version is available at: >> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2013edition > [...] > > Thanks, > > I can update my links to point to that instead of the > web.archive.org snapshot. > > Would it be possible to have a > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2016edition > as well (link to the current > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799) so we can link > to that now without the links becoming broken when the next > edition comes out? > There are now links at http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2008edition http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2013edition and http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2016edition Please note that the search engine scripts in the online version only search the latest version, if I have the cycles I could also update those scripts to be version specific - but that could be a while. > Thanks, > Stephane > I have also rebuilt the download bundles. regards Andrew Andrew Josey The Open Group Austin Group Chair Email: a.jo...@opengroup.org Apex Plaza, Forbury Road,Reading,Berks.RG1 1AX,England Tel:+44 118 9023044
Re: links broken in HTML basedef toc
hi Stephane, all Comments below > On 9 Nov 2016, at 21:19, Stephane Chazelas > wrote: > > 2016-11-09 11:35:37 +, Andrew Josey: > [...] >> This does flag a question to me about whether adding new terms >> goes beyond the true scope of a TC ( one to discuss another >> time) > [...] > > Note that it's not only those terms. Some whole sections have been > added. Compare > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2013edition/basedefs/V1_chap04.html > and > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html > > And the text is different including the meaning. For instance, > I'm sure I've given links to the shell grammar to show > "for i; do" was not standard. And that link now shows it is > standard (if it points at the grammar at all). I would rather it > points to the original version of the spec I was refering to > at the time with a mention that that spec is now obsolete. > Indeed there new general concepts as well as definitions. >> The old version is available at: >> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2013edition > [...] > > Thanks, > > I can update my links to point to that instead of the > web.archive.org snapshot. > > Would it be possible to have a > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2016edition > as well (link to the current > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799) so we can link > to that now without the links becoming broken when the next > edition comes out? > There are now links at http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2008edition http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2013edition and http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2016edition Please note that the search engine scripts in the online version only search the latest version, if I have the cycles I could also update those scripts to be version specific - but that could be a while. > Thanks, > Stephane > I have also rebuilt the download bundles. regards Andrew Andrew JoseyThe Open Group Austin Group Chair Email: a.jo...@opengroup.org Apex Plaza, Forbury Road,Reading,Berks.RG1 1AX,England Tel:+44 118 9023044
Re: links broken in HTML basedef toc
2016-11-09 11:35:37 +, Andrew Josey: [...] > This does flag a question to me about whether adding new terms > goes beyond the true scope of a TC ( one to discuss another > time) [...] Note that it's not only those terms. Some whole sections have been added. Compare http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2013edition/basedefs/V1_chap04.html and http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap04.html And the text is different including the meaning. For instance, I'm sure I've given links to the shell grammar to show "for i; do" was not standard. And that link now shows it is standard (if it points at the grammar at all). I would rather it points to the original version of the spec I was refering to at the time with a mention that that spec is now obsolete. > The old version is available at: > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2013edition [...] Thanks, I can update my links to point to that instead of the web.archive.org snapshot. Would it be possible to have a http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2016edition as well (link to the current http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799) so we can link to that now without the links becoming broken when the next edition comes out? Thanks, Stephane
Re: links broken in HTML basedef toc
2016-11-09 19:38:20 +, Andrew Josey: > All > > I’ve now updated the basedefs/toc.html page. One comment on > the message below though is that 3.210 Live Process is in both > the html and the pdf edition (see page 66 of C165) Thanks. > The same with 3.231 … 3.233 (so I wonder which pdf is being used) [...] Sorry, my bad. I was looking at a file I had called C138-02-2016.pdf, but that was the 2013 edition. Got fooled by the file name. C165.pdf is OK indeed. -- Stephane
Re: links broken in HTML basedef toc
All I’ve now updated the basedefs/toc.html page. One comment on the message below though is that 3.210 Live Process is in both the html and the pdf edition (see page 66 of C165) The same with 3.231 … 3.233 (so I wonder which pdf is being used) I still need to rebuild the download bundles regards Andrew > On 8 Nov 2016, at 22:13, Stephane Chazelas > wrote: > > I've noticed the links in the second half of > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/toc.html > > were broken. > > For instance the link for "Pathname" points to > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap03.html#tag_03_267 > > While tag_03_267 is "3.267 Parameter" (and Pathname is on 3.271) > in the HTML version (not in the PDF one). > > See how the HTML version has a "3.210 Live Process" section, but > no such one in the PDF version. > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap03.html#tag_03_210 > Same for "3.231 Multi-Threaded Library" and the two following > sections. > > > Also, it may be too late for TC2, but in the future, could it be > possible to have newer editions at different URLs? > > I've made a number of references to that POSIX spec in the past > (I count at least 50 at https://unix.stackexchange.com in > articles of mine alone, and a number of articles by others also > have links to that site) and now most of those links are broken > or point to the wrong section. > > For now, I'm going to update them to point to snapshots on > web.archive.org to avoid similar problems in the future. > > You could do like for RFCs: add a note at the top of every HTML > page in older revisions that it is superseded by a newer > revision. > > Thanks > Stephane > Andrew JoseyThe Open Group Austin Group Chair Email: a.jo...@opengroup.org Apex Plaza, Forbury Road,Reading,Berks.RG1 1AX,England Tel:+44 118 9023044
Re: links broken in HTML basedef toc
I see the issue. The toc file is still the 2013 version just with its header and footer updated. I will look at that when I get back to my office (I am travelling today). This does flag a question to me about whether adding new terms goes beyond the true scope of a TC ( one to discuss another time) The rationale for replacement of the content at the URL is that since this is a TC it changes the meaning of the standard when approved. The old version is available at: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799.2013edition regards Andrew > On 8 Nov 2016, at 22:13, Stephane Chazelas > wrote: > > I've noticed the links in the second half of > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/toc.html > > were broken. > > For instance the link for "Pathname" points to > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap03.html#tag_03_267 > > While tag_03_267 is "3.267 Parameter" (and Pathname is on 3.271) > in the HTML version (not in the PDF one). > > See how the HTML version has a "3.210 Live Process" section, but > no such one in the PDF version. > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap03.html#tag_03_210 > Same for "3.231 Multi-Threaded Library" and the two following > sections. > > > Also, it may be too late for TC2, but in the future, could it be > possible to have newer editions at different URLs? > > I've made a number of references to that POSIX spec in the past > (I count at least 50 at https://unix.stackexchange.com in > articles of mine alone, and a number of articles by others also > have links to that site) and now most of those links are broken > or point to the wrong section. > > For now, I'm going to update them to point to snapshots on > web.archive.org to avoid similar problems in the future. > > You could do like for RFCs: add a note at the top of every HTML > page in older revisions that it is superseded by a newer > revision. > > Thanks > Stephane > Andrew JoseyThe Open Group Austin Group Chair Email: a.jo...@opengroup.org Apex Plaza, Forbury Road,Reading,Berks.RG1 1AX,England Tel:+44 118 9023044
