-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 273
Self-host past drafts #54
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.
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
Conversation
@jdesrosiers Should we wait to merge this until know the legal implications of moving the spec process away from IETF to OpenJS Foundation? |
I'm not even a little worried that there's a legal issue with us moving away from IETF, but this change isn't related to that choice. It's something we need to do regardless because IETF told us that they don't guarantee that they will host expired drafts forever. Self-hosting is the only choice we have or we could loose those documents. The only possible legal issue, it's whether or not we can tell people that they can normatively reference our past IETF-published drafts in their spec because we host them and we said it's ok. If it turns out we can't say that, that would be (and currently is) annoying for other specifications, but it wouldn't mean we don't need to, or can't, self-host those documents. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a huge effort you putted on this. Thanks a lot Jason!
Looks good to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just some questions. Otherwise, looks great! Thanks.
Deploying with
|
Latest commit: |
4266b58
|
Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
Preview URL: | https://917b58d3.website-2v2.pages.dev |
Branch Preview URL: | https://self-host-drafts.website-2v2.pages.dev |
Resolves #49
I updated all links to our past drafts to point to a self-hosted version rather than IETF.
For most releases, we already had a copy in the repo, so I just had to change the link.
Missing copies
For the releases I didn't have a copy for, I got one from the IETF site. Unfortunately, they don't have an HTML copy that's self contained, so I chose to use the pdf version instead. However, for a couple of the really old releases, the only thing I could get my hands on was the txt version. It's probably possible to go back in git history to find html versions in the old website for some of the releases I used pdfs for, but I'm not sure that's worth the effort. Here are releases that don't have an html version.
Relative JSON Pointer
I left Relative JSON Pointer pointing to IETF. I think most of us agree that that spec makes sense to stay on the IETF track.
Symlinks
I did a little reorganization of how we store past drafts. Documents are now named with their IETF identifier and there are symlinks to the latest version using the common names. For example, draft-07 had two releases,
draft-handrews-json-schema*-00
anddraft-handrews-json-schema*-01
. All of those documents are in the/draft07
folder and there are symlinks pointing/draft-07/json-schema-core.html
,/draft-07/json-schema-validation.html
, and/draft-07/json-schema-hyperschema.html
to the*-01
versions.I didn't to create the symlinks for drafts 00-03 because they're just so old and unused that I didn't think it was necessary. I didn't create symlinks for draft-05 because it's a weird case and I didn't really know what to do with it. Technically, core and validation are just patch updates to draft-04, so
draft-04/json-schema*.html
should point to the draft-05 documents. But, hyperschema is changed in ways that requires that it be considered it's own version. I decided to just leave draft-05 as a distinct release even though it mostly isn't.Other cleanup
While looking for IETF links, I came across some IETF copy that doesn't make sense and either removed or updated it. I also noticed we were hosting a pdf for Understanding JSON Schema. That doesn't make sense in the new site, so I removed it.