W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Plan for getting core WPD content sorted out

From: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 12:08:14 +0000
Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Message-Id: <94DE65E0-4008-49C7-AF3F-B0C4CC310217@opera.com>
To: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
On 3 Dec 2012, at 12:03, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:

> See my comments inline.
> 
> ☆PhistucK
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com> wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2012, at 10:53, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I also think the core stuff should be finalized first. I think it should the top priority. That is what everyone (no exception) uses - and it is a huge mess.
> >
> > I am working on all of the DOM related reference pages for a while.
> > I am not nearly finished, but I think I am making some good progress.
> > However, I am not really adding content - I am really reorganizing it (taking page summaries from manual MSDN listings and removing those listings afterward, modernizing the MSDN examples, cleaning up weird 'out' MSDN parameters, moving non semantic standards information to the standards table and so on).
> > I sometimes add some usage information and compatibility information (from caniuse, MDN and such), or write my own summary, but in the majority of cases, this does not really happen.
> 
> It is another thing that needs sorting out in a sensible way really.
> 
> Lost you here, define "thing"?
>  

Problem with the site, task to be done...

> 
> >
> > I am also scared of moving pages, because of the Semantic Wiki cross reference issues that it may cause (we really need a bot for fixing all of the links after a move, especially since we have agreed upon a URL system), so the old URL system is still very much in place (dom/objects/bla, dom/methods/bla…).
> 
> Julee and some others have been working on finalising the URL system I believe. Where did that get to? I'd say once the mess is sorted out, we will have something more solid and stable to work on.
> 
> Apart form that, essentially it is just a matter of checking to make sure there is nothing already at the URL you are intending to move something to. I don't think it lets you just overwrite pages anyway.
> 
> I am not scared of overwriting (though that simply has not crossed my mind ;)), I am scared of broken references due to not removing the original URL. I understand Semantic Wiki has some issues where the queries go crazy or something, I do not remember. Some thread recently (a month or two) mentioned it.

Right. I'm not sure about that. It does create automatic redirects when you move pages, so that references are not broken. As you saying that doesn't work or messes up sometimes?

>  
> 
> >
> > One idea that I had in mind, is that the standards table should come from a list, with an option to either add to the list (like the current type system), or an option to add a custom one only to the page itself.
> > The problem (sort of) is that standards have lots of editions, especially working draft ones. So the links to them should be dynamic or flexible somehow, with a automatic completion to the current version.
> > (I admit I am sinning by always linking to the latest version, which can always change when it is a working draft (WHATWG HTML, W3C HTML5, DOM Level 3 Events, DOM Level 4, WHATWG DOM).)
> 
> I'd say that when quoting specs, really we need to link to both the stable version of the spec, but then also the latest experimental version. So you'd have something like
> 
> the <ul> element (Stable:HTML 4.01 | In progress:HTML5).
> 
> With "Stable:HTML 4.01" pointing to http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html
> and "In progress:HTML5" pointing to http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-ul-element.html#the-ul-element
> 
> Of course, if the item being talked about is part of a working draft or other non-stable document, we would just need to link to the latest experimental version
> 
> so something like
> 
> getUserMedia (In progress:Media capture and Streams).
> 
> linking to http://www.w3.org/TR/mediacapture-streams/#dom-navigator-getusermedia
> 
> 
> Would something like this work? I'd be happy to spec it out and write a guideline.
> 
> Yes and no, it can be broken if the latest version does not have it (for example, PeerConnection turned into RTCPeerConnection. #dom-peer-connection would lead to nowhere).
> Unfortunately, the right thing to do would be to link to the exact version where something is specified, but it breaks the fixed list idea.

Well, I was thinking of linking to the latest version it is mentioned in, in cases like that. You obviously wouldn't link to a spec where the thing isn't mentioned. If the method or whatever it is being discussed on the page changed syntax in the way you describe, this would mean the page is obsolete, and would need updating, so should be flagged as such.

> 
> 
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was just thinking about this. I've seen some discussion going back and forth about adding documentation to WPD for stuff like Audio API and CSS regions. That's great, but surely we should concentrate more for a bit now on getting some of the existing HTML/CSS/JavaScript core stuff sorted out? Getting that core stuff in place is surely a higher priority than documenting nascent standards features that currently have limited browser support. I am happy to work with Julee and the others to formulate a plan for this.
> >
> > After I've got the high level page structures/IA/UX in a bit more working order over the next couple of weeks, I am happy to start contributing to the low level content myself.
> >
> > I'd say a general plan would be:
> >
> > * Split the content into areas of responsibility, e.g. CSS learning articles (concepts plus tutorials), CSS property references, CSS selector references, HTML learning articles, HTML element references, etc.
> > * Assign those areas to individuals who can take responsibility for their tending
> > * Get people working on those areas over the next couple of months. I'd say each domain area needs an editor and a proof reader, possibly a demo writer as well, as when Lea gets Dabblet in place, we'll need to install live demos on all the articles.
> >
> > Shall we discuss this at the general meeting on Monday?
> >
> > Chris Mills
> > Open standards evangelist and dev.opera.com editor, Opera Software
> > Co-chair, web education community group, W3C
> > Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://my.opera.com/chrismills/blog/2012/07/12/practical-css3-my-book-is-finally-published)
> >
> > * Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
> > * Learn about the latest open standards technologies and techniques: http://dev.opera.com
> > * Contribute to web education: http://www.w3.org/community/webed/
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 12:09:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:36 UTC