RE: Proposal for updating links on

Another nit. Where companies are still named, I alphabetized the lists, with the exception of leading with "W3C".

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Mills []
>Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:14 AM
>To: Suresh Chitturi
>Subject: Re: Proposal for updating links on
>Great suggestion Suresh - change made.
>Chris Mills
>Opera Software,
>W3C Fellow, web education and Author of "Practical CSS3:
>Develop and Design" (
>On 11 Dec 2012, at 17:07, Suresh Chitturi <> wrote:
>> Looks very good.
>> Just one comment under "What is"
>> Change:
>> "It was founded by several stewards, including Opera, Mozilla, Google, the
>W3C, Microsoft, Adobe, HP, Nokia and Facebook, with the aim of ...."
>> To:
>> "It is supported by several Stewards, with the aim of ...." (point
>> "Stewards" to the Stewards page)
>> Rationale:
>> 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
>> Suresh Chitturi
>> Research In Motion Corporation
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Chris Mills []
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:03 AM
>>> To: Jonathan Garbee
>>> Cc:
>>> 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 it.
>>>> 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 idea.
>>>> 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 18:25:38 UTC