Add search role’s base concept pointing to HTML spec. Fix #1898

[thibaudcolas]

Claiming #1898 – with a link directly to the HTML spec.

Couple of things I noted along the way that informed this task, however small:

• The reference style I chose here ("direct link to the correct element in the spec") is only used for 3 other base concepts. The rest use the style: <code>&lt;button&gt;</code> in [[HTML]], with "HTML" being an inline reference pointing to the doc’s Normative references section. I found the direct links more helpful so chose that.
• This uses the same link (https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/grouping-content.html) to the HTML spec as other Base Concept links for consistency, but this URL 307-redirects to the WHATWG living standard athttps://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/grouping-content.html. It’d be nice to avoid this redirect but felt consistency mattered more, though the HTML link in "Normative references" also points to the WHATWG multi-page spec.

I’ll happily revisit this if it’s better to use the no-direct-link reference for consistency. And clean up other definitions as a separate PR if it helps.

---

Diff

[adampage]

LGTM. 👍🏻 I find the direct link helpful, but I also don’t know why there are differing conventions in the spec. Maybe it’d be good to normalize those, as a separate issue? /cc @spectranaut

[spectranaut]

LGTM. 👍🏻 I find the direct link helpful, but I also don’t know why there are differing conventions in the spec. Maybe it’d be good to normalize those, as a separate issue? /cc @spectranaut

I honest don't think I'm the best person to ask -- but maybe our links do need auditing/normalizing/fixing, maybe an issue could be filed? :)

I think an editor, @jnurthen should way in on the linking decision here :)

[jnurthen]

I’ll happily revisit this if it’s better to use the no-direct-link reference for consistency. And clean up other definitions as a separate PR if it helps.

A PR to clean up the others to use either xref (if possible) or data-cite (if no reasonable xref exists) would be great!

[w3cbot]

jnurthen marked as non substantive for IPR from ash-nazg.

[scottaohara]

i suggest we go with @jnurthen's second suggestion of using xref - [^search^]

lgtm otherwise

[thibaudcolas]

👍 thank you all for the feedback, this is my first time using ReSpec so very much appreciated. I’ve updated the PR accordingly.

change made in response