Conversation
ba2d509 to
d616339
Compare
Deploying rfcs with
|
| Latest commit: |
ac0799a
|
| Status: | ✅ Deploy successful! |
| Preview URL: | https://f5a23125.rfcs-6p3.pages.dev |
| Branch Preview URL: | https://fox-redo-summary.rfcs-6p3.pages.dev |
|
Could applications just be under implemented/accepted for each base layer and ootle? Those are base layer primitives/features, not applications. HTLC/P2SH support, for example, would directly change the rules of the protocol in terms of what tx types are accepted by the network. What is built on top of those primitives - Atomic Swaps for HTLC and multisig for P2SH (or in this case, multi-party tx for tariscript) - would be examples of applications, I would suggest putting these either under or within their respective primitive. Atomic swaps would become a subsection of the HTLC RFC in this case. Alternatively, you also have this "tari-specific base layer extensions" category/exception which would be PERFECT for these. And it looks like atomic swaps is already there? Time related tx/HTLC are there too, there's a section for TariScript and TariScript opcodes - everything under the application tab would be better suited in this category. It's also just kinda confusing and feels disorganized. |
|
also suggest implemented be above accepted so that how things actually work are at the very top. those are the things people reference most frequently and go to the documentation for. Implemented |
|
@m4r1m0 Pushed some changes to address your notes. Does this work for you? |
|
@Kelketek looks good! One small critique - when navigating via the sidebar, clicking one item resets the sidebar and collapses everything again. would it be possible to have the sidebar state persist? it makes navigation a bit difficult |
|
@m4r1m0 Mind creating an issue for it? I'd rather resolve that in a follow-up PR. |
|
Sounds good! Can do! |
This branch has not been deployed
2 participants
Description
This merge request improves the sidebar link layout to be more intuitive based on the information the viewer is looking for rather than the state of the proposal status (though this is also considered in the new layout.)
It also provides a hack for the issue where visiting a page in a subdirectory breaks relative links-- which is especially bad because the sidebar links are required to be relative due to limitations in mdbook.
Motivation and Context
Recent feedback indicates that people who want to learn about the protocol feel they are unable to find what interests them in the current layout, which was established after setting up the TIP process.
How Has This Been Tested?
Locally.