You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Open Community (TDC) Meeting, Thursday 09 March 2023 #3183
In order to give some more visibility into the topics we cover in the TDC meetings here is the planned agenda for the next meeting. Hopefully this will allow people to plan to attend meetings for topics that they have an interest in. And for folks who cannot attend they can comment on this issue prior to the meeting. Feel free to suggest other potential agenda topics.
Please submit comments below for topics or proposals that you wish to present in the TDC meeting
The agenda backlog is currently maintained in issue #2482
I know that there's a policy of not changing previously released documents, but does this really make sense when the links within to documents cease to function because of changes in Markdown rendering by GitHub or URL wtfery by the IETF?
Fixing these is essentially restoring the originally published behavior, which is now broken, providing bad UX to anyone who looks at the nominally authoritative renderings on GitHub.
There are currently 3 PRs attempting to address the GitHub problems:
To follow up on last week's discussion, let's decide if #3187 is the right approach to explaining byte/binary usage (especially paging @MikeRalphson ).
If approved, I will write a corresponding PR for 3.1.1 (the details of which will be quite different because of contentMediaType/contentEncoding).
I would update old specs purely to fix bad links, or obvious spelling errors that do not impact the meaning of what is being said. I agree that keeping dead links is a bad look.
Activity
handrews commentedon Mar 6, 2023
I know that there's a policy of not changing previously released documents, but does this really make sense when the links within to documents cease to function because of changes in Markdown rendering by GitHub or URL wtfery by the IETF?
Fixing these is essentially restoring the originally published behavior, which is now broken, providing bad UX to anyone who looks at the nominally authoritative renderings on GitHub.
There are currently 3 PRs attempting to address the GitHub problems:
versions/3.1.1.mdonv3.1.0-dev) fixes allversions/3.1.0.mdonmain) only fixespathItemObjectversions/3.0.3.mdonmain) fixes all, requested to port to 3.0.4There is one issue, one merged PR, and one unmerged PR about the IETF links
versions/3.0.3.mdonmain) fixes 3339 but not 1866versions/3.0.4.mdonv3.0.4-dev, merged) fixes allhandrews commentedon Mar 9, 2023
To follow up on last week's discussion, let's decide if #3187 is the right approach to explaining
byte/binaryusage (especially paging @MikeRalphson ).If approved, I will write a corresponding PR for 3.1.1 (the details of which will be quite different because of
contentMediaType/contentEncoding).karenetheridge commentedon Mar 11, 2023
I would update old specs purely to fix bad links, or obvious spelling errors that do not impact the meaning of what is being said. I agree that keeping dead links is a bad look.