Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Update EIP-1: Add W3C as a permissible origin #7111

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 17, 2023
Merged

Update EIP-1: Add W3C as a permissible origin #7111

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
16290c5
Add W3C as a permissible origin
SamWilsn Jun 1, 2023
8450d29
Update eip-1.md
SamWilsn Jun 14, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
18 changes: 18 additions & 0 deletions EIPS/eip-1.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -252,6 +252,24 @@ Permitted Networking Specifications URLs must anchor to a specific commit, and s
^https://github.com/ethereum/devp2p/blob/[0-9a-f]{40}/.*$
```

### World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

Links to a W3C "Recommendation" status specification may be included using normal markdown syntax. For example, the following link would be allowed:

```markdown
[Secure Contexts](https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/CRD-secure-contexts-20210918/)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Except it isn't 'Recommendation' status ...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree that being more explicit/precise about which stages in the Recommendation track can be linked would be good! "Proposed Recommendation" seems a stable-enough referent for my tastes (given what I've seen of W3C timelines) but maybe the group prefers a hard line?

image

Also, how do we feel about W3C Registries? I've seen some suspicion of registries per se in other threads but in this case (as upstream specification) I think it would be worth being able to link to them as authoritative...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

being more explicit/precise about which stages in the Recommendation track can be linked would be good!

It would indeed.

Having lived through most of the development of W3C process (e.g. I had to produce the first "Candidate Recommencation", which at that time didn't even have a name and wasn't yet a formal part of the Process), I think we could learn some stuff.

Rather than trying to set bright lines about what is an acceptable status it would be better to be clear about what the different things mean, and to require more explanation / justification of a given reference.

That is in fact roughly what W3C's reference policy for Recommendation is now. They tried really hard over many years to maintain something that had stricter rules until it was obvious that it was just a lot of bureaucracy and entanglement holding up work for the sake of not having to think hard about where the links went.

Copy link
Contributor

@kdenhartog kdenhartog Jun 13, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I never realized this didn't make it to Rec status. Right now the main requirement of a link is that it has immutable content and is a stable URL since there's no official way to update links once an EIP has made it to final status. With that in mind, I think it's less about being rec status for W3C and more about having an official date to recognize the version being referenced and being published in TR since once it's hit there it appears to become a stable link to reference.

Side note, I'll double check why that spec never made it to official Rec status since I believe it's been implemented by numerous browser engines at this point.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

First and foremost, we want the link to exist forever. Secondly, we want the content of that link to never change.

Ideally, we'd prefer linking to stuff that's ready for production use, but that isn't technically a requirement.

I'm not familiar enough with W3C to know if the regex as written meets those requirements. I think it's good enough? Would appreciate an expert confirming that though.

Copy link
Contributor

@chaals chaals Jun 15, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe the answer is "Yes". The regex (without the "REC-" modification I proposed, which is just to match the text that says it has to be a Recommendation) matches documents for which W3C provides a pretty strong guarantee that they won't make changes beyond fixing markup errors, broken links, definite typographical errors, and annotations that note if the document is superseded/obsoleted/... (although they don't guarantee to make such changes.

In particular, it can match drafts that clearly state they should not be cited except as "Work in Progress", and that can and do change in very significant ways. W3C specs more or less always provide a dated URL for a specific version (matching the regex) and a latest version URL that points to whatever is the latest work. given that they do a lot of conformance testing and work hard in the later stages of the Process to ensure that specs match implemented reality, it is probably a good idea to note this somehow in references.

```

Which renders as:

[Secure Contexts](https://www.w3.org/TR/2021/CRD-secure-contexts-20210918/)

Permitted W3C recommendation URLs MUST anchor to a specification in the technical reports namespace with a date, and so MUST match this regular expression:

```regex
^https://www\.w3\.org/TR/[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]/.*$
```

### Digital Object Identifier System

Links qualified with a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) may be included using the following syntax:
Expand Down