Are the permalinks necessary to the document?

[siusin]

With permalinks in the spec, it's impossible for the current auto-pub system to validate the mark-ups because permalinks can add any kind of text into the document and we dont have a good solution for permalinks.

Are the permalinks necessary to this document? Can we remove them so that we can make the /TR version be in sync with editor's draft?

[DavidMacDonald]

@siusin
I ran a link checker over the document

"https://validator.w3.org/checklink?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fusing-aria%2F&hide_type=all&depth=&check=Check#results1"

There were quite a few URL fragments that were no longer going to the proper parts of the documents, and some documents had moved, and therefore were of no use. I went through and found the relevant link fragments, and documents and corrected them. Did that introduce a problem?

If we don't link to specific parts of specification documents, then we will loose a lot. But perhaps I'm missing your point. Could you provide a couple of examples of permalinks that are a problem in the document, and show me what you would do to correct them so I can better understand? Then we can make a decision of whether they are necessary or not. And if not necessary we can remove them.

[siusin]

Thanks @DavidMacDonald !

There is some problems in the document when generating the spec with ReSpec, see
https://labs.w3.org/spec-generator/?type=respec&url=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fusing-aria%2Findex.html%3FspecStatus%3DWD%3BshortName%3Dusing-aria
(note the undefined characters near the w3c logo and at the top of the TOC)

PLH suggested we use includePermalinks: false (see specberus issues #673). Do you think we can have a try?

[DavidMacDonald]

@siusin
I'm up for giving it a try. you probably know better than us what needs to change so please do a pull request with the suggested changes?