Add basic support for tagging text in the spec #1769
Conversation
|
It looks like this (when hovered):
|
This adds two things: 1. Custom CSS to add a subtle dotted underline on hover to any element with an ID starting with `qx_` (an arbitrary prefix unlikely to be used by chance). 2. An example tag `qx_x0_is_zero`, tagging the text that specifies that x0 is hardwired to 0. This just adds a single tag as an exmaple, but the intention is that such tags would be added throughout the spec, allowing coverage, test plans, tests, documentation, etc. to all link to specific parts of the spec. The text of these tags can also be extracted via Asciidoc's docbook output format, enabling more use cases such as monitoring for spec changes.
Timmmm
force-pushed
the
user/timh/links
branch
from
df82d4a to
9beeadb
Compare
james-ball-qualcomm
requested review from
james-ball-qualcomm,
wmat and
kbroch-rivosinc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Will this tags.rb work for all adoc anchor types:
- This is before the parameter definition. [#param-foo-1]#Here's a parameter defined using inline anchors.# This is after the parameter definition.
- [#param-foo-2]
Here's a parameter defined in its own block using the # ID syntax. - [[param-foo-3]]
Here's a parameter defined using an anchor.
| @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ | |||
| [submodule "docs-resources"] | |||
| path = docs-resources | |||
| url = https://github.com/riscv/docs-resources | |||
| url = https://github.com/Timmmm/docs-resources | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you really want to merge in this change? Shouldn't be be using the riscv and not the Timmmm submodule?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, this was meant to be temporary just so it would pass CI. I'll make a PR for docs-resources later (yeay submodules!).
| @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ | |||
| <style> | |||
| /* | |||
| Any ID starting with 'qx_' (arbitrarily chosen to be unlikely to | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought we had settled on the "manual:" prefix. Can we use that instead of "qx_"? Will this cause any problems for the manual:priv and manual:unpriv anchors I recently added to the first block of the priv and unpriv manuals respectively (they used to have the same anchor name which doesn't work well when both priv and unpriv are in the same book). See #1841 for details.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah yeah I just haven't got around to updating it to manual: I will do that.
This adds two things:
qx_(an arbitrary prefix unlikely to be used by chance).qx_x0_is_zero, tagging the text that specifies that x0 is hardwired to 0.This just adds a single tag as an exmaple, but the intention is that such tags would be added throughout the spec, allowing coverage, test plans, tests, documentation, etc. to all link to specific parts of the spec.
The text of these tags can also be extracted via Asciidoc's docbook output format, enabling more use cases such as monitoring for spec changes.
See #1397