Re: Pubrules: Use https for /TR documents

Tobie,

Let me see what we can do on our side and get back to you asap.

Thanks for the feedback,

Philippe

On 05/09/2016 12:23 PM, Tobie Langel wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2016, at 20:43, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>> On 05/09/2016 09:46 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:
>>>> (note that this change may break specref.org @@check with Tobie)
>>>
>>> Yes, this seems like it might wreck havoc. Can you stage the new version
>>> somewhere and give me time to transition?
>>
>> yes. Not sure how far however, ie I'll have to produce that manually so
>> I may not do for every single shortname.
>
> It hasn't been uncommon in the past that tr.rdf had subtle bugs that
> broke things. This seems like a rather important change. It seems that
> having the two scripts side by side for a little while would be the
> reasonable solution if you expect uptime guarantees on the Specref side.
> I don't think that manually generating content is going to buy us much
> in terms of dealing with corner cases or multiple updates as specs are
> modified over time.
>
> Also note that I will be OoO this summer at dates still TBD and so might
> not necessarily be available to fix things if you suddenly turn this on
> without allowing prior testing.
>
>>>>       <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/TR/html51/">
>>>>         <sameWorkAs rdf:resource="https://www.w3.org/TR/html51/"/>
>>>>       </rdf:Description>
>>>
>>> I use shortnames to identify specs, nor URLs, so there's not distinction
>>> between the two resources shown above, so I have no idea what this
>>> change could cause (probably a stack overflow).
>>
>> I could:
>>
>> 1. make a copy of tr.rdf somewhere on the website
>> 2.
>>     a. add fake https entries that are past July 1, 2016 in it
>>     b. add fake https entries that are past May 1, 2016 in it
>
> As mentioned above, I don't think manually generating content is the
> appropriate solution here. :-/
>
> --tobie
>