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

Re: Web Platform doc sprint 2/23 at Adobe (browser compatibility update)

From: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 14:18:27 +0000
Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B92921D7-6319-4E16-A0A4-5CB2104458C7@opera.com>
To: Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com>
Hi Doug,

Thanks so much for your e-mail - this couldn't have come at a much better time! I have spent a lot of my time recently preparing instructions to help others create/fill in webplatform.org docs, both at doc sprints and whenever else they feel like it. My first one is the CSS property reference pages doc:

http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:CSS_property_guide

I have also been thinking about priorities leading up to beta:

http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Beta_Requirements

One of the main sticking points that I've not got very far with is browser compatibility information - it is such a lot of work to look it all up, probably almost as much time again as writing the rest of each reference page! I was just thinking about whether there'd be a decent way to grab the info from other places, where it exists, and if there are any good guidelines available on how to find the info…and here you are ;-)

Some more replies below, inline.

Chris Mills
Opera Software, dev.opera.com
W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org
Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M)

On 31 Jan 2013, at 19:47, Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, folks.  Peter Lubbers suggested that I contact you to track down
> the status of the browser compatibility grid, and how that's being
> moved forward.
> 
> Here's the conversation I started with him:
> 
> At the last SF doc sprint I made it to (the first?), I spent my time
> upgrading the instructions for how to document feature support by
> browser version (pulling the details from other resources on the web).
> I've been contemplating that effort since then, and had some ideas
> for how to accelerate the process.

Where are your instructions? I wasn't aware that we already had some. If we do then great - this will save me a whole lot of time.

> 
> I have a couple of quick questions that I thought someone might be
> able to answer offhand:
> 
> 1. Were the updated procs ever put into production?  (I'm mostly
> curious, but hopefully someone took them and ran with them; my goal
> was to establish that as the default starter exercise for new
> participants in the project)

I think that's probably a no, unless Peter and the others from the Goog doc sprint have been working on them. If not, then I would be happy to help drive them forward.

> 
> 2.  How complete are the current compatibility grids?  Are we done (or
> nearly so)?  Do we have an easy way to answer that question?

I would say that the compat information that is already there is fairly current, as it was grabbed from the original source pages (MSDN reference pages, for example). But I would still say there is quite a bit of work to do on them - the existing info often needs tweaking, and there is often the need to add more entries. For example, I recently updated the CSS background-image property page, and added new, separate entries for CSS gradient support, multiple background image support, SVG background image support...

I think the short answer is no.

> 
> If we aren't already done (or on track to be done soon), I'd like to
> explore building a web app (using Ruby on Rails) to partially automate
> the process (both scraping the other site, and
> tracking basic human validation of the results).  I figure I have
> three weeks to get ready, so let me know if we can chat about all
> this.

I think we would be most grateful if you did - sounds like a wonderful plan. You obviously won't be able to have this done by the European doc sprint next week, but going forward this would be so helpful.

When do you want to talk about this? We have a public webplatform call every friday at 5pm GMT / 9am PST, which you would be welcome to come join.

> 
> I'm also thinking of a structure that would enhance both collaboration
> (coordinated mass participation) and overall management of the doc
> project, either tying it to the existing lexical tree, or making the
> creation of such a reusable structure one of the next goals.
> 
> I think this could be a fun exercise, as well as providing an
> opportunity for me to apply some of my collaboration principles to a
> worthy and open endeavor.

Also sounds really interesting - I'd love to hear more.
Received on Friday, 1 February 2013 14:18:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:39 UTC