On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 01:10:13 GMT, Jonathan Gibbons <j...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Please review a "somewhat automated" change to insert `@spec` tags into doc > comments, as appropriate, to leverage the recent new javadoc feature to > generate a new page listing the references to all external specifications > listed in the `@spec` tags. > > "Somewhat automated" means that I wrote and used a temporary utility to scan > doc comments looking for HTML links to selected sites, such as `ietf.org`, > `unicode.org`, `w3.org`. These links may be in the main description of a doc > comment, or in `@see` tags. For each link, the URL is examined, and > "normalized", and inserted into the doc comment with a new `@spec` tag, > giving the link and tile for the spec. > > "Normalized" means... > * Use `https:` where possible (includes pretty much all cases) > * Use a single consistent host name for all URLs coming from the same spec > site (i.e. don't use different aliases for the same site) > * Point to the root page of a multi-page spec > * Use a consistent form of the spec, preferring HTML over plain text where > both are available (this mostly applies to IETF specs) > > In addition, a "standard" title is determined for all specs, determined > either from the content of the (main) spec page or from site index pages. > > The net effect is (or should be) that **all** the changes are to just **add** > new `@spec` tags, based on the links found in each doc comment. There should > be no other changes to the doc comments, or to the implementation of any > classes and interfaces. > > That being said, the utility I wrote does have additional abilities, to > update the links that it finds (e.g. changing to use `https:` etc,) but those > features are _not_ being used here, but could be used in followup PRs if > component teams so desired. I did notice while working on this overall > feature that many of our links do point to "outdated" pages, some with > eye-catching notices declaring that the spec has been superseded. Determining > how, when and where to update such links is beyond the scope of this PR. > > Going forward, it is to be hoped that component teams will maintain the > underlying links, and the URLs in `@spec` tags, such that if references to > external specifications are updated, this will include updating the `@spec` > tags. > > To see the effect of all these new `@spec` tags, see > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/8296546/api.00/ > > In particular, see the new [External > Specifications](http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/8296546/api.00/external-specs.html) > page, which you can also find via the new link near the top of the > [Index](http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/8296546/api.00/index-files/index-1.html) > pages. Hi Jon, When referencing an RFC, it might be good to keep the RFC number in the text link. For instance I see that java.net.URL now has this: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/8296546/api.00/java.base/java/net/URL.html External Specifications [Format for Literal IPv6 Addresses in URL's](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2732.html), [Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.html), [Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.html) You will see that two of the RFC links have the same text but link to different RFCs, which I am finding confusing. Also I do hope it's clear that if a specification is referenced it doesn't mean it's being implemented. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11073
