- From: Paul Irish <paul.irish@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:33:44 +0000
- To: Michael Sierra <msierra@adobe.com>
- Cc: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHSVx=_k52NdgbcE_VXu1PMQFysexshRhmw__XThb1SQuU9K4g@mail.gmail.com>
I've long proposed shorter URLs and still think they are a better match for our audience than over-specifying and using spec vocabulary. However, Given this list, I feel like the larger issue is one of granularity. There simply isn't a good reason all the PerformanceTiming events (for example) should get their own page. performance.timing deserves ONE page that's comprehensive. Our imported content defined these conventions, though, as far as I know, no one considered them. In nearly every page in the linked file<https://github.com/mike-sierra/webplatform/blob/master/urls.txt>, I would probably collapse it into its parent. I don't think we'll find an URL structure that is consistent, technically accurate, using precise terminology, using developer terminology, and simultaneously user-friendly. And that's okay. The important thing is having high-value documentation. Pages that developers read and are hugely impressed so much valuable content is there. On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Michael Sierra <msierra@adobe.com> wrote: > Turns out there are quite a few collisions in these examples once you > strip out the 'on' prefixes from the event names: > > /apis/file/FileReader/abort > /apis/file/FileReader/error > /apis/push/PushService/error > /apis/webcrypto/CryptoOperation/abort > /apis/webcrypto/CryptoOperation/complete > /apis/webcrypto/CryptoOperation/init > /apis/webrtc/DataChannel/close > /apis/websocket/WebSocket/close > > --Mike Sierra > > > > ________________________________________ > From: PhistucK [phistuck@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:33 PM > To: Michael Sierra > Cc: public-webplatform@w3.org > Subject: Re: URL structure sanity check > > In some cases (WebSocket, for example, if I am not mistaken), you cannot > use addEventListener for listening to an event, like ws.onopen. Adding it > as "open" might cause some confusion. > It might be an implementation issue, because I think WebSocket is > specified to subclass EventTarget as well, which means addEventListener > should apply to it, but in Chrome, as far as I remember, it does not work. > I have not tried other browsers. > Anyway, in cases like these (assuming no browser implements > addEventListener for that object), events should begin with the "on" > prefix, I believe (but still have the regular Event template, I guess). > > What does everyone think? > > Also, does anyone have any information regarding other browsers (or > current Chrome?) in this regard? > > > ☆PhistucK > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Michael Sierra <msierra@adobe.com > <mailto:msierra@adobe.com>> wrote: > Re the recent conf-call clarifying the apis/ URL space, here are a few > random APIs generated from some test W3C specs: > > https://github.com/mike-sierra/webplatform/blob/master/urls.txt > > Of all the comments are marked "#", > > * I think of "deviceorientation" as belonging under apis/, but it seems to > simply modify the window object. Can/should it be represented here? > > * The File API defines a new URL scheme, and I wonder where that gets > doc'ed > > * I noticed one instance of a namespace collision, where an abort() method > collides with an "abort" event. In this URL list, I kept it as it appears > in the spec, "onabort," but current practice in the wiki is to strip the > "on" prefix, which would cause a problem. > > --Mike Sierra > > > >
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 23:34:42 UTC