W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Little by little

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 12:58:57 -0500
Message-ID: <52B72861.7010804@w3.org>
To: Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com>
CC: Webplatform List <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Hi, Max–

Sorry for the late reply. I've been engaged in a side project for WPD 
that has consumed me, and I hope to have more to report there soon. :)

Regarding your approach, I think it's reasonable, though I'll offer a 
slight modification. Importing to template-format, as you suggest, will 
only work if there are templates to reference (I think!). So, we want to 
have those templates.

I connected with Eliezer, and he's now working on the JavaScript 
templates. He's working on the simplest possible templates that we can 
use for import, and is basing his work on what you've done.

Hopefully, we can move toward the next step by the beginning of next 
year, just after the break.

And then, as you say, we'll be done with the import, and ready to start 
on the next stage.

Thanks again for all your hard work and dedication, and leadership on 
this part of the project. It's greatly appreciated!


I know you're not in it for the glory, but it's beneficial to the 
project to show how different community members are contributing, so I'd 
like to have a blog post about this. You seem like the natural person to 
write it; if you like, I can help out, or even come up with a first 
draft. What do you think?

Regards-
-Doug

On 12/12/13 1:24 PM, Max Polk wrote:
> I'd like to start surrounding JS imported page content, little by
> little, in templates.
>
> It appears a complex scheme exists to auto-generate the Syntax section, such as:
>      http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/apis/audio-video/AudioTrack/enabled
>
> Nobody typed this in:
>      var result = AudioTrack.enabled;
>      AudioTrack.enabled = value;
>
> Instead, various page properties were set. Go to the Tools | Browse
> properties, and see things like:
>      API name
>      Example object name
>      JavaScript data type
>      Property applies to
>      Return value name
>
> This may not be the right approach.  The JS import pages aren't just
> showing a property and return type, but a connected sequence of one or
> more lines of code, followed by a matching parameter section.  Notice
> how "arrayObj" and "size" and "element0" and "element1", etc
> correspond between the code and the parameter section beneath:
>
>   arrayObj = new Array()
>   arrayObj = new Array([ size ])
>   arrayObj = new Array([ element0 [, element1 [, ...[, elementN ]]]])
>
> ==Parameters==
> ; arrayObj: Required. The variable name to which the '''Array'''
> object is assigned.
> ; size: Optional. The size of the array. As arrays are zero-based,
> created elements will have indexes from zero to size -1.
> ; element0,...,elementN: Optional. The elements to place in the array.
> This creates an array with n + 1 elements, and a '''length''' of n +
> 1. Using this syntax, you must supply more than one element.
>
> So just copying the concept from the /apis/ pages may not be the right
> approach.  If so, designing page properties, page templates, semantic
> forms, and other related things feel like a herculean task.  Designing
> is a "top-down" approach.
>
> I'm thinking of working from the bottom up.  Instead of completing a
> full architectural design, I have actual pages to import, and maybe
> the *best thing* I can do for now is to surround all content in the
> right templates.  This would finish the work of JS page import, and it
> would be in the state: "semantic form ready," and be fully compatible
> with whatever top-down design occurs later.
>
> Can I get a group consensus on me doing bottom-up work to fully
> templatize the JS imported pages as my first task?
>
> If we agree, I can simple wrap content in templates and the import is DONE.
>
> To start, I can get *just* the top section of each page templatized.
> Here is sample top-section templatized:
>
> +=+=+=+= PAGE
>
> http://docs.webplatform.org/test/javascript/Array
>
> +=+=+=+= BEFORE
>
> Provides support for creation of arrays of any data type.
>
>   arrayObj = new Array() arrayObj = new Array([ size ]) arrayObj = new
> Array([ element0 [, element1 [, ...[, elementN ]]]])
>
> ==Parameters==
> ; arrayObj: Required. The variable name to which the '''Array'''
> object is assigned.
> ; size: Optional. The size of the array. As arrays are zero-based,
> created elements will have indexes from zero to size -1.
> ; element0,...,elementN: Optional. The elements to place in the array.
> This creates an array with n + 1 elements, and a '''length''' of n +
> 1. Using this syntax, you must supply more than one element.
>
> +=+=+=+= AFTER
>
> {{Page_Title}}
> {{Flags}}
> {{Summary_Section|Provides support for creation of arrays of any data type.}}
>
> {{JSPrototype|
>   arrayObj = new Array()
>   arrayObj = new Array([ size ])
>   arrayObj = new Array([ element0 [, element1 [, ...[, elementN ]]]])
> }}
>
> {{JSParameter
> | Name=arrayObj
> | Required=true
> | Description=The variable name to which the '''Array''' object is assigned.
> }}
>
> {{JSParameter
> | Name=size
> | Required=false
> | Description=The size of the array. As arrays are zero-based, created
> elements will have indexes from zero to size -1.
> }}
>
> {{JSParameter
> | Name=element0,...,elementN
> | Required=false
> | Description=The elements to place in the array. This creates an
> array with n + 1 elements, and a '''length''' of n + 1. Using this
> syntax, you must supply more than one element.
> }}
>
> Have a look at the parameters above and see if this is good enough as
> a bottom-up approach to fit into a master design that will come later.
>
Received on Sunday, 22 December 2013 17:59:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:56 UTC