8000 [Extensions] Add iDOT to "Chunks Not Described Here", #530 by svgeesus · Pull Request #541 · w3c/png · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

[Extensions] Add iDOT to "Chunks Not Described Here", #530 #541

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Draft
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

[Extensions] Add iDOT to "Chunks Not Described Here", #530 #541

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor

As resolved, 15 Sept 2025

I added the primary reference as a bibliographic item, and added a few sentences to explain the previously un-registered but Public chunk.

I also had to clear up some syntactic issues that Bikeshed was objecting to:

  • Authors are supposed to be a JSON array
  • Incorrect reference to ISO646

Please confine review comments to the .bs source file, the html is auto-generated from that.

@leo-barnes
Copy link

@annevk, we should try to review this

chrisn
chrisn reviewed Sep 15, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member
@chrisn chrisn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good, assuming there's no more official document we can reference.

@svgeesus @chrisn
Update extensions/Overview.bs
0833337 
Co-authored-by: Chris Needham <chrisn@users.noreply.github.com>
@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks good, assuming there's no more official document we can reference.

There is not.

@annevk
Copy link
Member
annevk commented Sep 16, 2025

@svgeesus did you see #530 (comment)? We plan on contributing the details.

@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor Author

@svgeesus did you see #530 (comment)? We plan on contributing the details.

I had not, when I made the PR.

Official details would be much better than reverse-engineered though, clearly, so I will set this PR to draft meanwhile.

@svgeesus svgeesus marked this pull request as draft September 17, 2025 12:43
@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor Author

@annevk @leo-barnes what sort of timescale do you have in mind for providing the details?

I am wondering whether to wait, or to merge now and improve the documentation later.

@annevk
Copy link
Member
annevk commented Sep 25, 2025

Yeah sorry, it's a little more involved than anticipated. I'm hoping we have something next week.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@chrisn chrisn chrisn approved these changes

@ProgramMax ProgramMax Awaiting requested review from ProgramMax

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
4 participants
@svgeesus @leo-barnes @annevk @chrisn
0