Skip to content

chore: add a versions overview to README, prevED prop for living draft #272

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.

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 31, 2025

Conversation

jorenbroekema
Copy link
Contributor

@jorenbroekema jorenbroekema commented May 13, 2025

See slack for versioning discussion.

Even if we don't have semver (because it's not really the way of doing things for W3C community group specs it seems), it would help if the living draft that's published on tr.designtokens.org had a backlink to the previous editor draft.

Furthermore, adding a versions overview at least to the README of this repo is useful for tools to see which versions there are, so they can more easily communicate to their users which version of the spec the tool is compliant with.

Copy link

netlify bot commented May 13, 2025

Deploy Preview for dtcg-tr ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 991ad64
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/dtcg-tr/deploys/68231beb4f4744000898f148
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-272--dtcg-tr.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

Copy link
Contributor

@drwpow drwpow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think you’d want to get more reviews but this is a great addition IMO


Here's an overview of all of the published versions of this draft specification:

| name | url | date |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
| name | url | date |
| Name | URL | Date |


| name | url | date |
| --------------- | ---------------------------------------- | ---------- |
| editors-draft/1 | first-editors-draft.tr.designtokens.org | 2021-09-23 |
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
| editors-draft/1 | first-editors-draft.tr.designtokens.org | 2021-09-23 |
| editors-draft/1 | [first-editors-draft.tr.designtokens.org](first-editors-draft.tr.designtokens.org) | 2021-09-23 |

| editors-draft/2 | second-editors-draft.tr.designtokens.org | 2022-06-14 |
| living-draft | tr.designtokens.org | 2025-04-18 |

> Note: tools can use the date as a version number to signify compliance. For example: `20250418`.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I’d prefer 2025-04-18 instead because it’s more readable, and also screenreaders can announce that better than an integer. Also, having a string has the bonus feature of allowing more than one version per day, e.g. 2024-04-18-pre1 (which, you never know—always good to have the option)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm pretty agnostic here, but to add to the bikeshedding, 2024.04.18 might be read better and has the advantage of looking like a version number. you can add a .1, .2 to the end there to indicate more than one version per day.

Copy link
Member

@c1rrus c1rrus 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. Thank you for adding this @jorenbroekema !

@kaelig kaelig merged commit b24f363 into design-tokens:main May 31, 2025
6 checks passed
@jorenbroekema jorenbroekema deleted the versions branch June 3, 2025 10:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants