Re: Creating API pages

Thanks Mike!
I'd like to add some clarification, if I may...


On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Mike Sierra <
letmespellitoutforyou@gmail.com> wrote:

> Re "Action Item", Along with Julee, I plan to assemble a list of URLs
> based on interface declarations in a generous sample of W3C specs,
> with comments noting any items I run across that don't fit into the
> structure discussed in the meeting.  It appears throughout the
> meeting, I was unclear about the purpose of <apilist>, which was
> reflected in my notes for the action item. Let me clarify
> terminology:
>
> /apis/apiName/apiInterface/(property|method|event)
>

Is this change in terminology necessary? We were working from this:

apis/<apilist>/<apiObject>/<event|method|property>



>
> * The "apis" page would list available APIs by the spec-level
>   conceptual handler by which they're commonly referred.
>

Yes, under the terminology in the proposal, the apis page is just a
category page that lists all of the sub pages.



>
> * Each "apiName" page lists available apiInterfaces. This page would
>   discuss how to use the API as a whole.
>

Yes, the <apilist> page describes the API by its common name, i.e.
apis/webrtc


>
> * Each "apiInterface" would feature tables listing out...
>

Yes, the <apiObject> page provides an overview of the object and lists its
events, methods, and properties.


>
> * ...properties, methods, and events.
>

Yes, these types describe the individual members of the API object.


>
> NOTE: open question whether to represent constants and exceptions on
> separate pages?  I tend to think they belong in tables on the
> apiInterface page, partly because they're conceptually tied to the
> interface as a whole & partly b/c I expect them to brief & easy to
> scan at that level.
>

A certain amount of infrastructure needs to be built to support this. For
now we can just include the constants and exceptions within the properties
and methods to which they apply.



>
> Not sure if I missed this point earlier, but there are many cases
> where the "apiName" would match one of the component "apiInterface"
> items.  Examples: File API defines File, FileList, FileReader, and
> Blob interfaces; Geolocation API defines Geolocation, Position,
> PositionOptions, PositionError, and Coordinates interfaces. I think
> users would understand the distinction, but I want to make sure we're
> aware of the issue. Was this the major concern about collisions?
>

The <apilist> namespace identifier is written in all lower case because it
is only a namespace identifier. The <apiObject> is written in camel case
because it is the proper name of the object. For example,
apis/indexeddb/IndexedDB or apis/webrtc/MediaStream.



>
> I'd suggest a couple of template enhancements:
>
> * Specify when one API interface extends another.  E.g., I set up a
>   page for CSSRegionStyleRule that inherits from CSSRule. Ideal if
>   one interface can slurp in the other's.
>

This is already in place. See
apis/webrtc/objects/LocalMediaStream<http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/apis/webrtc/objects/LocalMediaStream>
.


>
> * Where appropriate, note the DOM node used to access each interface
>   object: document, navigator, window, video, audio, etc.


Worth a try! If we can come up with something slicker than just a link in
the description, I'm all for it.


>
> On this last point, perhaps remaining elements within dom/apis could
> then link back? I understand this will be the place for the remaining set
> of core DOM APIs.
>

I'm not sure what you mean here.


>
> --Mike Sierra
>

Thanks Mike!
+Scott


>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com> wrote:
> > Thanks to everyone who particpated on the call today to discuss the
> proposal
> > and the apis architecture. Ahead of meeting notes, I'd like to review
> some
> > of the main points and revisit the issues that were not fully resolved at
> > the end of the call. It's rather imperative that we be able to move
> forward
> > with the documenting the APIs, and I think we've resolved enough of the
> > issues to be able to move forward without having to do too much revising
> or
> > reorganizing of our docs down the road.
> >
> > Could everyone please take a moment to read this and respond? Thanks!
> >
> > apis architecture
> >
> > We decided to remove the "intermediate" pages (objects, events, methods,
> and
> > properties) from the namespace to keep the URLs shorter and eliminate the
> > need to fill these pages with queries or redirects. The new api namespace
> > architecture is as follows:
> >
> > apis
> > apis/<apilist>
> > apis/<apilist>/<apiObject>/<foo-event>
> > apis/<apilist>/<apiObject>/<bar-method>
> > apis/<apilist>/<apiObject>/<baz-property>
> >
> > Note: further discussion about the <apilist> namespace identifier is
> further
> > on, but assumed here to be maintained.
> >
> > I will begin rewriting the proposal for this and reorganizing the webrtc
> > docs.
> >
> > constants
> >
> > We discussed the possibility of providing for constants (enumerations)
> that
> > are shared across several methods within an object. I spoke with our own
> > Dimitri Glazkov about this. Turns out that an API may provide for the
> case
> > where a property could use only part of the enumeration (values 1 and 2,
> but
> > not 3) while another property would use all values (1, 2, and 3) of a
> given
> > enumeration. Constants are defined for the object, so this scenario is
> quite
> > common.
> >
> > Now the challenge is how to represent the valid constants for a
> particular
> > property. We need a way to specify constants 1 and 2 (but not 3) for
> > property A, and specify constants 1, 2, and 3 for property B. Probably
> the
> > best way is to follow the same approach we take with events, methods, and
> > properties pages and the "Applies to" field.
> >
> > So, each constant would have its own page, i.e.
> > apis/<apilist>/<apiObject>/<FOO-constant> and the properties page would
> have
> > a summary table listing each of the valid constants. The trick here
> would be
> > to provide each <FOO-constant> page with multiple "Applies to" fields so
> > that these could be shared.
> >
> > This needs some thought and design expertise. For now, let's just move
> > forward with constants listed per property.
> >
> > exceptions
> >
> > We need to describe the exceptions for a method. Same re-use scenario as
> > with constants. So apis/<apilist>/<apiObject>/<Bar-exception> and the
> > ability to "Applies to" to different methods. Note that often API methods
> > use DOM exceptions, so this template needs to work for both dom and apis.
> > Could get kind of hairy with multiple "Applies to" fields.
> >
> > Needs some thought and design expertise, too. For now, let's just move
> > forward with exceptions listed per method.
> >
> > Move all apis under dom
> >
> > It was suggested that all of the api pages could be moved under the dom
> > namespace.
> >
> > Early on we decided to keep the dom namespace separate from the apis
> > namespace. The "non-dom" apis are more clearly defined on their own, and
> > fitting them within the dom does not add any value. While it is true that
> > most of the time an API is accessed within the context of a dom object,
> i.e.
> > navigator.getUserMedia() or  window.indexedDB.open(), usually this
> context
> > is only necessary to create the initial object, i.e. a LocalMediaStream
> > object or an IDBOpenDBRequest object. That much is adequately covered in
> the
> > documentation and needn't be spelled out in the URLs. And, as was pointed
> > out in the call, our purpose is not to mimic the document object model in
> > our URLs, but to provide for location and navigation. Furthermore,
> nesting
> > everything under a DOM object page makes the URL longer.
> >
> > API Listing pages
> >
> > It was suggested that we remove the API Listing pages from the apis
> > namespace. I strongly urge us not to do so.
> >
> > The API listing pages describe the API by its common names - the names by
> > which users search for information about the API. It provides for
> > find-ability where an API has multiple "listing names" - as is the case
> with
> > the WebRTC API which is further sub-divided into the MediaStream,
> > PeerConnection, and DataChannel APIs. These need to be included as
> > sub-headings in the listing page to fully describe the API.
> >
> > The API listing pages provide an overview of how to use the API objects
> > included in the specification. The best place to do this is within the
> apis
> > namespace, rather than a "concepts" or "guides" or other namespace.
> >
> > The API listing pages provide for disambiguation between like-named API
> > objects. Consider two objects:
> >
> > The MediaStreamAudioSourceNode object from the Web Audio API
> > The MediaStream object from the WebRTC API
> >
> > In fact, both of these are the same thing, as creating a
> > MediaStreamAudioSourceNode is simply passing to that object an object of
> > type MediaStream:
> >
> > MediaStreamAudioSourceNode createMediaStreamSource ( MediaStream
> mediaStream
> > );
> >
> > If our URLs read, apis/MediaStreamAudioSourceNode and /apis/MediaStream
> > without any context to differentiate them, users are likely to get
> confused.
> >
> > Action Item: Proving out the apis architecture
> >
> > I'm concerned that there may have been a miscommunication about the
> action
> > item captured at the end of the meeting. This happened while the meeting
> was
> > adjourning, and may have been misconstrued. Here's the snippet from the
> IRC
> > channel:
> >
> > 9:57 AM <sierra_> TASK: someone sanity-check how actual APIs would work
> > 9:59 AM <sierra_> in apis/<apilist>/objects/<apiObject>/properties , go
> to
> > apis/APIobject/properties
> > 10:00 AM <sierra_> sorry, apis/APIobject
> >
> > What I heard was that the action item is to review the apis namespace to
> see
> > if there would be collisions between api objects without the intervening
> > <apilist> object. First, it is unlikely that within our very limited apis
> > namespace that this will happen (we currently have some 8 or 9 APIs, not
> > counting DOM APIs); second, we can never fully prove the lack of
> collisions
> > because we don't have time to review the entire set of standard APIs -
> and
> > we certainly can't vet the ones that haven't been created yet.
> >
> > Perhaps someone could fill in here why this exercise is necessary and
> what
> > it hopes to prove?
> >
> > Would it not be more efficacious to simply proceed with maintaining the
> > <apilist> namespace identifier - as in apis/<apilist>/<apiObject>/<etc.>?
> >
> > Thanks for helping out here!
> >
> > +Scott
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:23 PM, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am planning on adding fields for constants within the API Object
> >> template/form. It might take a few days, though. I hope to work on it on
> >> Friday or Saturday.
> >>
> >> ☆PhistucK
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:06 PM, David Gash <dgash@google.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Scott,
> >>> For tomorrow's call, apart from the basic issue of the API content
> >>> architecture, let's discuss the web audio list before I set off
> creating
> >>> ~150 pages. Also, I have a few questions about certain parts of the
> >>> interface that you (or someone else) may be able to answer, below. The
> >>> numbers refer to the W3C spec, and are linked to the specific sections
> for
> >>> easy reference.
> >>>
> >>> 4.3 AudioSourceNode
> >>> Listed as an "abstract" interface, has no documented properties or
> >>> methods.
> >>>
> >>> 4.11 MediaElementAudioSourceNode
> >>> Created in an Audiocontext, has no documented properties or methods.
> >>>
> >>> 4.14.1 PannerNode Constants
> >>> There's no API structure/path for constants.
> >>>
> >>> 4.18 ChannelSplitterNode and
> >>> 4.19 ChannelMergerNode
> >>> Also have no documented properties or methods.
> >>>
> >>> 4.24 WaveTable and
> >>> 4.25 MediaStreamAudioSourceNode
> >>> Also have no documented properties or methods.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure whether to create pages for the objects with no properties
> >>> or methods, and whether to document the PannerNode constants as
> properties
> >>> or... something else. Any input appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks Dave! Be sure to share any issues you encounter on this thread.
> >>>> +Scott
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:16 AM, David Gash <dgash@google.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Scott / all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm starting to document the web audio API. Based on Scott's proposal
> >>>>> doc and the W3C specs, the first few topics' URLs will be structured
> thus:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> apis/webaudio
> >>>>>
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioContext/properties/destination
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioContext/properties/sampleRate
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioContext/properties/currentTime
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioContext/properties/listener
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioContext/properties/activeSourceCount
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioContext/methods/createBuffer
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioContext/methods/decodeAudioData
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioContext/methods/createBufferSource
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioContext/methods/. . . etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioNode/properties/context
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioNode/properties/numberOfInputs
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioNode/properties/numberOfOutputs
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioNode/methods/connect
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/AudioNode/methods/disconnect
> >>>>>
> >>>>> apis/webaudio/objects/. . . etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are a lot more objects, properties, and methods in this API, of
> >>>>> course, but Scott has reviewed this plan and, barring any
> objections, that's
> >>>>> the path structure I'll be following.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I plan to outline the entire set before creating any pages, then
> create
> >>>>> all the stubs, then go back and fill in.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Dave
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When I sat down to document the process for creating API pages,
> using
> >>>>>> the WebRTC documentation as the poster child, I found more
> questions than
> >>>>>> answers. I realized that we did not have a good story here, so I
> did my best
> >>>>>> to fill in the holes with a methodology that attempts to solve the
> problems
> >>>>>> I found.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You find this methodology described in WPD:Creating_API_pages.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that it started out as a how-to for contributors, but quickly
> >>>>>> became a proposal. So parts of it will read either way. Don't be
> alarmed.
> >>>>>> The purpose of the document is to provide you with a methodology to
> try on
> >>>>>> as you do what I did - test it out with your own API pages.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As you do, please don't update the methodology in that page - let's
> >>>>>> discuss it first. We can use this thread for the discussion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for your help!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +Scott
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>