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

Re: JavaScript page naming, round B

From: Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:40:50 -0400
Message-ID: <51DF5EA2.10400@gmail.com>
To: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
CC: Julee <julee@adobe.com>, Webplatform List <public-webplatform@w3.org>
The first link:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2012Nov/0161.html
Conveys the principle:
     Remove the "intermediate" pages (objects, events, methods, and 
properties)
     from the namespace to keep the URLs shorter:
Format:
     apis/nameOfApi/apiObject/(event|method|property)
Example:
     apis/webrtc/MediaStreamTrackList/length
Listing page for all things in the api:
     apis/nameOfApi
And that does seem to be fully contained in:
     http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Creating_API_pages


The second link and it's follow on discussion:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2013Feb/0071.html
Asks a question about combining content for event/property magic:
     apis/indexeddb/IDBTransaction/onerror
     apis/indexeddb/IDBTransaction/error
But no such magic is defined by the JavaScript language.


I'm ignoring the architecture page since it's marked as old:
     http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Architecture
I'm ignoring the 48K "mother of all index pages" since it has spotty 
coverage of JavaScript:
     http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Content/Topic_Hierarchy


So I believe we are now in agreement.  This page seems like the true 
reference:
http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Content/Reference_articles
And we are here for page names:
     js/operators
     js/statements
And all I need to do is add:
     js/objects

That leaves two decisions left to vote on:

Decision 1: use "js" or "javascript" as the top-level?
     js/operators    --versus--    javascript/operators
     js/statements --versus--    javascript/statements
Decision 2: accept "js/objects" as the parent of all built-in objects of 
importance:
     javascript/objects


On 7/11/2013 2:05 AM, PhistucK wrote:
> Actually, I am not sure the pages to which you linked are up to date 
> or reflect the future we want to have, but maybe the current situation 
> (before the MSDN import).
>
> The discussions I could find -
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2012Nov/0161.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2013Feb/0071.html
>
> It looks like every such discussion did not result in any action (a 
> wiki update) or in total agreement. Perhaps it was discussed further 
> in the content meetings that (I think) Julee had back then, I did not 
> participate in those.
>
> ...[clip]...
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 01:41:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:52 UTC