Re: Second JS bulk upload

+1 on what Eliot said. Thanks! J


----------------------------
julee@adobe.com
@adobejulee





-----Original Message-----
From: Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 5:58 PM
To: Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com>, julee <jburdeki@adobe.com>, PhistucK
<phistuck@gmail.com>
Cc: Renoir Boulanger <renoir@w3.org>, WebPlatform Public List
<public-webplatform@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Second JS bulk upload

>Thanks, Max!
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Max Polk [mailto:maxpolk@gmail.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2013 5:42 PM
>>To: Julee Burdekin; PhistucK
>>Cc: Renoir Boulanger; List WebPlatform public
>>Subject: Re: Second JS bulk upload
>>
>>
>>In 370 of the 382 pages, residual information exists such as the
>>following in
>>javascript/Date/valueOf where it says in the "Requirements"
>>section:
>>
>>Supported in the following document modes: Quirks, Internet Explorer 6
>>standards, Internet Explorer 7 standards, Internet Explorer 8 standards,
>>Internet Explorer 9 standards, Internet Explorer 10 standards. Also
>>supported
>>in Windows Store apps. See Version Information.
>>
>>Are we keeping this?
>
>Decidedly not. When we donated the content, we knew that there would be
>Microsoft-specific remarks that would have to be stripped out for
>browser-agnostic use. This is a prime example of that kind of content.
>
>>Also, the "See Also" section is frequently blank.
>>
>
>I'll let someone else answer this too, but I would lean toward publishing
>with them blank for now. Unless you know of an automated way of
>populating these, that is. My guess is that they are specific to each
>topic, in order to be good. And yes, that will take time to correctly
>identify links. The breadcrumbs at the top of the page will help get to
>portal pages (Functions, etc.).
>
>My 2 cents.
>Eliot
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 03:24:38 UTC