RE: Proposal for updating links on

Looks very good.

Just one comment under "What is"


"It was founded by several stewards, including Opera, Mozilla, Google, the W3C, Microsoft, Adobe, HP, Nokia and Facebook, with the aim of ...."


"It is supported by several Stewards, with the aim of ...." (point "Stewards" to the Stewards page)

Since this section is intended to merely describe "What is" the steward list may be more appropriate in the other sections. Alternatively, a pointer to Stewards page makes it future proof (in the event more stewards join).

Suresh Chitturi
Research In Motion Corporation

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Mills []
>Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:03 AM
>To: Jonathan Garbee
>Subject: Re: Proposal for updating links on
>I've had a go at drafting some text for the proposed "About" page. Is the kind
>of thing we want?
>What is
> is a community-driven documentation site mainly focused
>on client-side web technologies. It was founded by several stewards,
>including Opera, Mozilla, Google, the W3C, Microsoft, Adobe, HP, Nokia and
>Facebook, with the aim of creating a definitive resource for web developers
>and designers to find all the information they need to do their job. The main
>part of the site is a wiki containing tutorials, concept articles and reference
>docs, but we also have a Q&A section, blog, and IRC chat, and we are aiming to
>expand out capabilities in the future to include live code examples, resources
>for educators, and more.
>How the site was created
>About a year ago, a small group - including people of W3C, Opera, Microsoft,
>Mozilla, Google and others - started talking about a new documentation
>project for information covering open web standards. Yes, there are lots of
>documentation sites already available, but some of them are low quality, out-
>of-date, or both. Some have great information about some subjects, but not
>others. And generally it takes web developers a lot of time to find all the
>information they want. It would be great for all the information providers to
>get together and produce one authoritative resource to tell web designers
>and developers all the information they need to know to do their job.
>The idea was very warmly received by all parties involved, and so we all
>started solving problems together, working out an infrastructure for the
>project that would scale well and handle lots of different contributors,
>working out marketing and business plans, and putting together a large list of
>content from different resources - such as HTML5 rocks, MSDN, MDN and
>Opera's web standards curriculum - that would act as seed content to get the
>project started.
> philosophy
>Ideally, we want this to be an ever-evolving project controlled and written by
>the community, rather than a bunch of big name vendors telling everyone
>what to do. The stewards are just there to provide structure and funding. We
>want everyone involved in the web community to feel they have to right to
>contribute new material and improve existing articles. It's your web,
>documented your way.
>On 11 Dec 2012, at 09:49, Chris Mills <> wrote:
>> On 7 Dec 2012, at 12:28, Jonathan Garbee <> wrote:
>>> Well, there should be an "about" page [1] since that issue has been sitting
>for quite a while.  That should be the "philosophy" if there is to be a page for
>> So, adding an "About/philosophy" page to the site, and changing one of the
>links in the main navigation to "About" - yup, I think this is definitely a good
>> I am happy to draft this. What do we need on there?
>> 1. More detail about what webplatform is 2. Why the site was created
>> 3. Philosophy behind it
>> Anything else?
>>> The more link also needs to go [2] since it is a UX nightmare. There is no
>reason to have multiple links go to the same area in the same nav menu with
>different names. Should it ever have a different name in any navigation item?
>> Sorry - I read the bug, but I don't know what other page you are suggesting
>adding here - it is as if a part of the explanation on the bug is missing? Can you
>elaborate on this second point?
>>> I also don't think we need a link to the stewards in the main navigation..
>There is a block of text lower down in the page going to the stewards page
>and then the footer logos on every page.
>> Yeah, I agree really - I was just throwing it out there as another idea. But
>your reaction confirms it in my mind as a bad idea.
>>> [1]
>>> [2]

This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 17:09:42 UTC