Closed Jeremy-Kemp closed 3 years ago
Is this approach OK, or should both the txt and HTML variants be maintained?
I think this is fine, but FWIW when I switched a few of the Intel extensions to the .html version I kept a minimal .txt version that sign-posted to the .html version instead so links wouldn't break. For example:
https://www.khronos.org/registry/OpenCL/extensions/intel/cl_intel_subgroups.txt
This worked pretty well. The only disadvantage I found is that it took a while for search engines to start returning the .html version ahead of the .txt version.
I'll keep this PR open for another day or so in case you want to do something similar. Or, if you'd rather merge it as-is, just let me know and I'll click the button. Thanks!
Thanks, both good suggestions. Signposting from the txt will be useful for anyone who has the txt version(s) bookmarked.
I've used identical wording for the txt updates and made the extension list alphabetical.
@bashbaug @alycm rather than update the old IMG extension specs that had txt versions, I've completely removed them in favour of HTML versions. Is this approach OK, or should both the txt and HTML variants be maintained?