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

Re: Plan for getting core WPD content sorted out

From: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 14:32:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CABc02_KmfFL9QUqwZ5GLkHXbOWo1yYApBsSgJQ7sW_RPm=2EtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
See my comments inline.

☆*PhistucK*



On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com> wrote:

> 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...
>

Still lost, but feel free to ignore...


> >
> > >
> > > 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?
>

I do not remember the exact problem, but I think it has something to do
with API Listing, method/property/event drawing and stuff like that. It
messes stuff up sometimes. It breaks these connections, I think.

Here -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2012Oct/thread.html#msg39
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2012Oct/thread.html#msg163
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2012Nov/thread.html#msg152


>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
>
Does that mean we cannot create a fixed specification document list?


>  >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 12:33:52 UTC

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