W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-intents@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Editorial pass on the spec

From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:00:24 +0000
To: <gbillock@google.com>
CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-web-intents@w3.org>, <robin@berjon.com>
Message-ID: <0C27FC81-4686-4FC1-ACD9-218713190E6E@nokia.com>
Greg

In addition to incorporating Robin's changes, you  might want to change the TODO for the Latest Editors Draft to

http://dev.w3.org/hg/web-intents/raw-file/tip/spec/Overview.html

since that seems to be the editors draft URL...

This version will get set upon publication, I assume the shortname is 'web-intents'?

I think we need to formally approve the short name if I am not mistaken.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia



On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:40 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:

Hi all!

Since a draft is to be published soon, as I promised Greg (too long ago), I made a pass through the current document looking for editorial/spec-markup issues. I detail them here for those who are interested in such matters.

Given that I can't push to the hg repository, I've played it old school style and attached a patch to the bottom of this email.

Here are the changes:
     switched to ReSpec v3, with async loading. This should be both faster and better.
     pointed to the actual editor's draft in the configuration
     made it a joint deliverable between DAP and WebApps
     enabled syntax highlighting for examples
     in IntentParameters, unless I'm mistaken I don't believe you can use "dictionary" as a type name. I replaced it with |any| which I believe is the closest (even if not as clear)
     removed "raises DOMException" from the Intent constructor (raises was dropped from WebIDL)
     replaced type |string| with |DOMString| in a number of places
     fixed a reference to POSTMSG that was using the URI instead
     put in the proper references to callbacks in startActivity
     made IntentSuccessCallback and IntentFailureCallback actually use the WebIDL callback feature
     I wonder if rather than "[NoInterfaceObject] interface Foo {...};" followed by "Window implements Foo" (or Navigator) it wouldn't be better to just use "partial interface Window {...};". It seems more straightforward, but I didn't make that change.
     replaced <i> with <var> for variables in algorithms
     when referring to WebIDL items that you are defining in the draft, it is better to use <a>Foo</a> rather than <code>Foo</Foo> because they get automatically linked (I changed them all)




--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon

<robin-review.diff>
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 14:01:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 20 June 2012 14:01:26 GMT