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

Re: Deprecated/Non Standard Indications Within Listings

From: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:18:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CABc02_L0bmBDntARs_X_uyLxDRUQ=NhZU+4KHG3KP1pf-WzSbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
Cc: public-webplatform@w3.org, seb@desbenoit.net
I increased the side padding by 2 pixels.
Are you sure the colors are fine? It seems kind of detached or seems to
stick out a little too much (or maybe it should, so people do not use non
standard/deprecated stuff).

Should I also add a title to it? "This is a (Non Standard|Deprecated)
feature. Any use of this feature is discouraged."?

Should a similar box show in the page of the non standard/deprecated
feature itself?

☆*PhistucK*



On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com> wrote:

> Looks pretty good to me - nice and readable, fits well with the overall
> look of the page. Maybe just add about 2px of extra left and right padding
> to the boxes, to make it look more even on all sides
>
> 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/
>
> On 5 Dec 2012, at 09:43, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can someone take a look at the indications and let me know whether the
> color/box/design is fine?
> > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Template:API_Listing_New
> >
> > You can see it next to "MSStream".
> >
> > ☆PhistucK
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>
> > Date: Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: Missing Essentials
> > To: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
> > Cc: public-webplatform@w3.org
> >
> >
> > 13. Indicate a method/property is non standard, deprecated and so on.
> > Add a few check boxes to the API method/property/object (and more...)
> templates to indicate that it is non standard, deprecated, proprietary or
> obsolete (supported only in Netscape 2, for example, or only on HTML 3) -
> each of them should get a check box.
> > This information should show up on the property/method tables of the
> "Applies to..." object. Ideally, anything marked as such would reside in a
> separate section below everything that is standard/current, so users would
> not be encouraged to use it.
> >
> > There's an ability to mark any reference article (including
> Methods/Properties) as being standard/obsolete/non-standard, etc.  Making
> it so that those would be pulled out in the summary tables on API Objects
> should be relatively easy. Another good thing t o
> >
> > I gave it a shot. I created two test bed templates for this purpose -
> > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Template:API_Listing_New
> > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Template:Summary_Table_Body_New
> >
> > These look good!
> >
> > A few questions -
> > 1. How do you test template changes? I created new templates just for
> the sake of experimentation, because I would not want to break all of the
> template users while experimenting/making changes. Is there another way?
> >
> > I'm embarrassed to admit that what I've done up until now is just made
> the changes on the live templates and quickly checked to make sure they
> didn't obviously break anything. The way you've done it here is better for
> non-trivial changes.
> >
> > 2. I added a #switch that searches for Non-Standard or Deprecated (I
> could easily add more, if needed, like Obsolete, which I think should be
> added to the Standardization_Status options) and adds a styled span (it
> would be better if I used a class and added it to some global CSS). Does
> that seem fine (the style could use some work, of course ;))?
> >
> > Yeah, this approach seems perfect.
> >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 13:19:58 UTC

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