RE: Deprecated/Non Standard Indications Within Listings

The appearance looks fine, but there’s a continuum from “non-standard” to “standard” that might need some discussion.  Off the top of my head, there’s:
- Totally proprietary,  never offered for standardization and without any sort of IPR commitment
- Not offered for standardization but for which there are some royalty-free patent commitments (VP8 might be an example)
- Offered for standardization but ended up as W3C Notes rather than standards (Web SQL API comes to mind)
- On a standards track but not stable yet
- Stable spec that is (or is likely to be) standardized in more or less its current form (e.g HTML5, 2D Canvas, etc.)

That’s probably to fine-grained for WPD’s purposes, but I’d think that at least 3 categories are needed, something like:
- Proprietary
- Draft Standard
- Stable Standard

Thoughts?

From: PhistucK [mailto:phistuck@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 1:08 PM
To: frozenice
Cc: public-webplatform@w3.org
Subject: Re: Deprecated/Non Standard Indications Within Listings

Done.

I will be committing this change to the actual production templates this weekend, barring any new objection/suggestion.

☆PhistucK


On Wed, Dec 5, 2012<tel:2012> at 8:31 PM, frozenice <frozenice@frozenice.de<mailto:frozenice@frozenice.de>> wrote:
I like it better without the "font-weight: bold". Colors are ok.


On 05.12.2012 10:43, PhistucK wrote:
Can someone take a look at the indications and let me know whether the color/box/design is fine?
http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Template:API_Listing_New


You can see it next to "MSStream".
☆*PhistucK*




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Alex Komoroske* <komoroske@google.com<mailto:komoroske@google.com> <mailto:komoroske@google.com<mailto:komoroske@google.com>>>
Date: Wed, Dec 5, 2012<tel:2012> at 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: Missing Essentials
To: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com<mailto:phistuck@gmail.com> <mailto:phistuck@gmail.com<mailto:phistuck@gmail.com>>>
Cc: public-webplatform@w3.org<mailto:public-webplatform@w3.org> <mailto:public-webplatform@w3.org<mailto:public-webplatform@w3.org>>


            13. Indicate a method/property is non standard, deprecated and so on.
            Add a few check boxes to the API method/property/object (and more...) templates to indicate that it is non standard, deprecated, proprietary or obsolete (supported only
            in Netscape 2, for example, or only on HTML 3) - each of them should get a check box.
            This information should show up on the property/method tables of the "Applies to..." object. Ideally, anything marked as such would reside in a separate section below
            everything that is standard/current, so users would not be encouraged to use it.


        There's an ability to mark any reference article (including Methods/Properties) as being standard/obsolete/non-standard, etc.  Making it so that those would be pulled out
        in the summary tables on API Objects should be relatively easy. Another good thing t o


    I gave it a shot. I created two test bed templates for this purpose -
    http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Template:API_Listing_New

    http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Template:Summary_Table_Body_New



These look good!


    A few questions -
    1. How do you test template changes? I created new templates just for the sake of experimentation, because I would not want to break all of the template users while
    experimenting/making changes. Is there another way?


I'm embarrassed to admit that what I've done up until now is just made the changes on the live templates and quickly checked to make sure they didn't obviously break anything. The
way you've done it here is better for non-trivial changes.

    2. I added a #switch that searches for Non-Standard or Deprecated (I could easily add more, if needed, like Obsolete, which I think should be added to the
    Standardization_Status options) and adds a styled span (it would be better if I used a class and added it to some global CSS). Does that seem fine (the style could use some
    work, of course ;))?


Yeah, this approach seems perfect.