manual: Fix link to CLOS MOP spec, linking to modern public domain version

Bug #1748665 reported by Jean-Philippe Paradis on 2018-02-10
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone

Bug Description


There is a broken link to the old (in my biased view, *obsolete*) copyrighted no-modifications-allowed version of the CLOS MOP specification in the manual. I think we should consider taking the opportunity to link to my modern public domain version instead, while fixing the link.

Full faithfulness to the contents of the book has been a top priority, which was ensured by carefully auditing the new version against the actual book, so this is very complete and safe to use. Mobile support is already implemented, and offline support and further improvements are underway.

I think it's safe to say that most people would prefer to use this new version over any other previously existing versions. A cursory look at my version should easily convince most people of this.

I hope this is to your satisfaction.


(Note that all or almost all of the CSS validation "errors" (as seen when clicking on "✔ CSS3" at the bottom of the page) stem from the validator not yet supporting CSS variables, a widely supported feature in all modern standards-compliant browsers. I consider this a bug in the validator.)

(Relatedly, I am also seeking to get specbot updated to link to this modern version:


(I already submitted a pull request for this (, but I'm told that those might not even be looked at, so I'm resubmitting here. If pull requests are as useless as I've been told, then I think there should be fairly prominent warnings about this somewhere...)

(I attached a patch as an actual attachment, I'm not sure if that's the preferred way to do this or if for small patches like this inlining the patch in the message might be preferred...)

Stas Boukarev (stassats) wrote :

I find it a bit too busy, a lot of links, arrows, headings. I get lost. I've found the old page easier to read, can you maybe make a lite version?

That stuff is intended to help one more easily understand the structure of the document and determine at a glance where they are and how to go to where they want to go, but sure, I'll add some further options to the preferences page ( to make it possible to have a more barren look.

Hopefully that can help even more thoroughly obsolete the older versions by pleasing larger sections of the audience.

I forgot to mention that my modern version has always contained 148 "RS" links to easily get to the corresponding section in Robert Strandh's more barren version.

I think this should be enough to satisfy the three people would would prefer the old barren version over my modern version.

I think it would be entirely appropriate to fix this link.
(And that it would be user-hostile malpractice not to do so.)

(My native "barren" feature is still planned but its development has unfortunately bogged down for the time being.)

PS: My related specbot PR still hasn't had a response after 9 months, which is expected but still infuriating and unconscionable.

PPS: I'll spare you a deeply contextually relevant link into a recent thread on my twitter.

"who would", not "would would", sorry. (Can't edit comments?!?!?)

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers