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

Re: JavaScript page naming, round B

From: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:36:44 +0300
Message-ID: <CABc02_+knbge2aBs-TVqkAPUOrVqOGTWJb0zxokHvcrnj_4o5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Julee <julee@adobe.com>
Cc: Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com>, Webplatform List <public-webplatform@w3.org>
If you can take a stab at it first, I think it would be best. I will go
over it and see if something needs altering.

Thank you!


☆*PhistucK*


On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote:

> Hi, PhistucK & Max:
>
> We spoke about this thread in the general meeting today. You're closing on
> a final schema, so let's create a proposal page for the JavaScript
> reference. Then, we can ask some ECMAScript language experts to review it.
>
> Do one of you want to create a page at, say,
> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Projects/javascript/reference?
>
> If you want me to take a stab at it first, so you two can go in and
> finalize it, let me know.
>
> Regards.
>
> Julee
> ----------------------------
> julee@adobe.com
> @adobejulee
>
> From: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
> Date: Friday, July 12, 2013 2:57 AM
> To: Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com>
> Cc: julee <julee@adobe.com>, Webplatform List <public-webplatform@w3.org>
>
> Subject: Re: JavaScript page naming, round B
>
> I believe we have settled on "javascript" (versus "js"), since
> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/javascript exists and
> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/js does not, so "javascript" is the top
> level.
>
> Regarding the "objects" level... I still think it should be "Global", for
> correctness and accuracy reasons. I am not an authority here, anyway, so
> others have to agree in order to make this a consensus (but I feel like I
> am the only one with this "Global" opinion).
>
>
> ☆*PhistucK*
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  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 19:37:51 UTC

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