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

Re: JavaScript APIs organization

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:18:36 -0400
Message-ID: <507EF67C.3050305@w3.org>
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
CC: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>, public-webplatform@w3.org
Hi, Dom-

I've had similar concerns, but larger organizational and logistical 
issues to resolve first.

If you propose a concrete structure, maybe informed by MDN's choices, 
I'm very open to rearranging this part of the docs.

Regards-
-Doug

On 10/15/12 6:29 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Le lundi 15 octobre 2012 à 11:54 +0200, Dominique Hazael-Massieux a
> écrit :
>> Le lundi 15 octobre 2012 à 10:31 +0100, Chris Mills a écrit :
>>> First of all, we need to make sure
>>> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Content/Topic_Hierarchy works.
>>> Does this work for JS, and we just need to move the pages so they are
>>> consistently placed? Or could this use some updating? This is the
>>> definitive document that defines the IA for the site.
>>
>> Thanks for that link, I hadn't stumbled upon it yet :)
>>
>> I don't think the described hierarchy works for JavaScript stuff; I've
>> already mentioned DOM vs APIs, and the problems with name clashes if we
>> stuff all methods (resp. properties) in dom/methods (resp.
>> dom/properties) [I'll note that the table mentions using
>> dom/apis/methods, rather than "methods/" as a direct child of dom/].
>>
>> Having "methods" and "properties" for Events in a separate hierarchy
>> might also be troublesome, since at the end of the day, events also have
>> DOM interfaces similar to other DOM interfaces.
>>
>> The third hierarchy for "js" would probably make sense, but there again,
>> there is a risk of duplication/confusion if the rules of what go in JS
>> aren't crystal-clear. What is outlined in the proposed hierarchy seems
>> to make a strong link between the "js" subtree and the ECMAscript
>> language, which sounds good to me.
>
> Another sub-tree that would be worth considering in this reorg would be
> the cssom (in css/cssom) one.
>
> Dom
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 18:18:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:34 UTC