Add spec_url for html.elements.li.type #24983
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
the
data:html
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if we should add a spec url for obsolete features. The referenced part of the spec doesn't have any specified behavior, and the resulting standard track status may be misleading.
Requesting a second opinion from @Elchi3.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is another reason why we want to remove standard_track long-term. It is somewhat confusing if it implies some sort of blessing in cases like this one or has any additional meaning. However, per the guidelines, currently, standards_track true is set if "the feature is part of an active specification". which is given here even though it is in the "obsolete" section of that active spec. There are quite a few obsolete features that are in active specs and they can't be removed for compat reasons and to not break old websites.
I guess you've set it to true because otherwise the linter will complain about it due to the added spec_url.
The spec_url link is very useful in my opinion as the pointer to the spec lets your learn that the spec considers this feature "obsolete" (which has consequences for this features' "deprecated" BCD status.). Setting standards_track to true looks a bit weird now, but I think if we understand it purely as "mentioned in an active spec" then it is okay for it to be set to true. Again, ideally BCD just provides spec_urls and gets rid of our somewhat poorly defined standards_track status in the future. See #1531.
|
I discover it when working on mdn/content#36687, and |
Summary
Test results and supporting details
Related issues