search

w3c / secure-payment-confirmation

Secure Payment Confirmation (SPC)
https://w3c.github.io/secure-payment-confirmation/
Other
106 stars 48 forks source link

[Editorial] Tweak to i18n considerations #234

Closed ianbjacobs closed 1 year ago

ianbjacobs commented 1 year ago

Editorial tweak based on: https://github.com/w3c/secure-payment-confirmation/pull/232#pullrequestreview-1343877232

Preview | Diff

stephenmcgruer commented 1 year ago

re the failing build, looks like something broke between versions in bikeshed. From the build log:

  $ pip3 show bikeshed | grep -i version
    Version: 3.11.16

Whereas locally on my machine (which builds this PR fine)

✗ pip3 show bikeshed | grep -i version
Version: 3.11.10

It looks like the build complains about line 505,

    $ bikeshed --die-on=fatal spec "spec.bs" "spec.bs.built.html" 
      LINE 505:12: Quoted attribute was never closed
       ✘  Did not generate, due to fatal errors

Which should be:

<wpt title="This test file tests inherited behavior from the PaymentRequest
            specification; that a user activation is required to call show()
            (and thus to trigger SPC authentication). We test it explicitly for
            SPC to make it clear that this behavior is desirable even if the
            API shape for SPC changes in the future.">

cc @tabatkins - is this an expected breakage in bikeshed 3.11.16, and if so what is the syntax for a multi-line title attribute for a <wpt> tag? Thanks!

tabatkins commented 1 year ago

Not an expected breakage, sorry about that! I'm in the middle of switching to a bespoke HTML parser, and the way it interacts with my existing (slightly hacky) code to track line numbers isn't great. I don't believe this will affect the actual built result tho, a force build (-f flag) should still work. (I have to assume that at least one spec in the ~400 I use in my testsuite has a multiline attribute value, and I didn't notice a single change related to this when testing the new code.)

I apologize for this; I'm working on this today and tomorrow and should hopefully have things fixed before EOD friday. If not, I'll do a rollback and publish a new version until this is fully baked.

(Make this one more strike in the "track build messages as part of the testsuite in addition to the built spec" column. :( )

ianbjacobs commented 1 year ago

@stephenmcgruer, I have pushed changes based on your comments. @aphillips, please review the new text to see whether it captures the I18N WG's intentions, but adjusted for this context.

ianbjacobs commented 1 year ago

Hi @aphillips and @xfq; I have updated the pull request based on the latest text from the I18N WG, but integrated into the flow of this section.