- From: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:38:07 -0800
- To: Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me>
- Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHZLcPr+ok4TPwRia4kk08iaF+Dsc-WhNVi3OWMEL++x3c+JDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Oops. My example is not correct. I'll fix that. Instead, see http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/apis/file/events/onabort. +SCott On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > Perhaps I'm not gettin' it, but why would you strip out the "on"? We > usually document them as event handlers (properties). Here's an old MDN > doc: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/FileReader, and here's > my treatment of > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/apis/webrtc/objects/MediaStreamTrack/properties/onmute > . > > +Scott > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me>wrote: > >> I'm inclined to agree with Paul here. Using his example of >> PerformanceTiming there are about *twenty* subpages. That seems pretty >> excessive to me. I think his idea of using one comprehensive page is good, >> but making sure headings are setup properly so if people want to point to a >> specific thing or know where they are going they can easily use a fragment >> to do it. I'm also seeing some with only two or three subpages; having >> those seems almost wasted for so little content when one page could do just >> fine with the information. >> >> I am not sure what was said during the telcon for this though. If there >> was a technical reason for wanting to use sub-pages then please let me >> know. I think we could get the forms/templates setup pretty well for >> having one page handle all that is needed though. >> >> -Garbee >> >> >> On 11/15/2012 6:33 PM, Paul Irish wrote: >> >> 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 Friday, 16 November 2012 19:38:35 UTC