- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:29:07 +0200
- To: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
- Cc: public-webplatform@w3.org
Le lundi 15 octobre 2012 à 11:54 +0200, Dominique Hazael-Massieux a écrit : > Le lundi 15 octobre 2012 à 10:31 +0100, Chris Mills a écrit : > > First of all, we need to make sure > > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Content/Topic_Hierarchy works. > > Does this work for JS, and we just need to move the pages so they are > > consistently placed? Or could this use some updating? This is the > > definitive document that defines the IA for the site. > > Thanks for that link, I hadn't stumbled upon it yet :) > > I don't think the described hierarchy works for JavaScript stuff; I've > already mentioned DOM vs APIs, and the problems with name clashes if we > stuff all methods (resp. properties) in dom/methods (resp. > dom/properties) [I'll note that the table mentions using > dom/apis/methods, rather than "methods/" as a direct child of dom/]. > > Having "methods" and "properties" for Events in a separate hierarchy > might also be troublesome, since at the end of the day, events also have > DOM interfaces similar to other DOM interfaces. > > The third hierarchy for "js" would probably make sense, but there again, > there is a risk of duplication/confusion if the rules of what go in JS > aren't crystal-clear. What is outlined in the proposed hierarchy seems > to make a strong link between the "js" subtree and the ECMAscript > language, which sounds good to me. Another sub-tree that would be worth considering in this reorg would be the cssom (in css/cssom) one. Dom
Received on Monday, 15 October 2012 10:29:23 UTC