Re: Little by little

I will be glad to write up anything.  Should we wait until we are done
or blog about a work in progress?

P.S.   HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!!!!!

On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> wrote:
> Hi, Max–
>
> Sorry for the late reply. I've been engaged in a side project for WPD that
> has consumed me, and I hope to have more to report there soon. :)
>
> Regarding your approach, I think it's reasonable, though I'll offer a slight
> modification. Importing to template-format, as you suggest, will only work
> if there are templates to reference (I think!). So, we want to have those
> templates.
>
> I connected with Eliezer, and he's now working on the JavaScript templates.
> He's working on the simplest possible templates that we can use for import,
> and is basing his work on what you've done.
>
> Hopefully, we can move toward the next step by the beginning of next year,
> just after the break.
>
> And then, as you say, we'll be done with the import, and ready to start on
> the next stage.
>
> Thanks again for all your hard work and dedication, and leadership on this
> part of the project. It's greatly appreciated!
>
>
> I know you're not in it for the glory, but it's beneficial to the project to
> show how different community members are contributing, so I'd like to have a
> blog post about this. You seem like the natural person to write it; if you
> like, I can help out, or even come up with a first draft. What do you think?
>
> Regards-
> -Doug
>
>
> On 12/12/13 1:24 PM, Max Polk wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to start surrounding JS imported page content, little by
>> little, in templates.
>>
>> It appears a complex scheme exists to auto-generate the Syntax section,
>> such as:
>>      http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/apis/audio-video/AudioTrack/enabled
>>
>> Nobody typed this in:
>>      var result = AudioTrack.enabled;
>>      AudioTrack.enabled = value;
>>
>> Instead, various page properties were set. Go to the Tools | Browse
>> properties, and see things like:
>>      API name
>>      Example object name
>>      JavaScript data type
>>      Property applies to
>>      Return value name
>>
>> This may not be the right approach.  The JS import pages aren't just
>> showing a property and return type, but a connected sequence of one or
>> more lines of code, followed by a matching parameter section.  Notice
>> how "arrayObj" and "size" and "element0" and "element1", etc
>> correspond between the code and the parameter section beneath:
>>
>>   arrayObj = new Array()
>>   arrayObj = new Array([ size ])
>>   arrayObj = new Array([ element0 [, element1 [, ...[, elementN ]]]])
>>
>> ==Parameters==
>> ; arrayObj: Required. The variable name to which the '''Array'''
>> object is assigned.
>> ; size: Optional. The size of the array. As arrays are zero-based,
>> created elements will have indexes from zero to size -1.
>> ; element0,...,elementN: Optional. The elements to place in the array.
>> This creates an array with n + 1 elements, and a '''length''' of n +
>> 1. Using this syntax, you must supply more than one element.
>>
>> So just copying the concept from the /apis/ pages may not be the right
>> approach.  If so, designing page properties, page templates, semantic
>> forms, and other related things feel like a herculean task.  Designing
>> is a "top-down" approach.
>>
>> I'm thinking of working from the bottom up.  Instead of completing a
>> full architectural design, I have actual pages to import, and maybe
>> the *best thing* I can do for now is to surround all content in the
>> right templates.  This would finish the work of JS page import, and it
>> would be in the state: "semantic form ready," and be fully compatible
>> with whatever top-down design occurs later.
>>
>> Can I get a group consensus on me doing bottom-up work to fully
>> templatize the JS imported pages as my first task?
>>
>> If we agree, I can simple wrap content in templates and the import is
>> DONE.
>>
>> To start, I can get *just* the top section of each page templatized.
>> Here is sample top-section templatized:
>>
>> +=+=+=+= PAGE
>>
>> http://docs.webplatform.org/test/javascript/Array
>>
>> +=+=+=+= BEFORE
>>
>> Provides support for creation of arrays of any data type.
>>
>>   arrayObj = new Array() arrayObj = new Array([ size ]) arrayObj = new
>> Array([ element0 [, element1 [, ...[, elementN ]]]])
>>
>> ==Parameters==
>> ; arrayObj: Required. The variable name to which the '''Array'''
>> object is assigned.
>> ; size: Optional. The size of the array. As arrays are zero-based,
>> created elements will have indexes from zero to size -1.
>> ; element0,...,elementN: Optional. The elements to place in the array.
>> This creates an array with n + 1 elements, and a '''length''' of n +
>> 1. Using this syntax, you must supply more than one element.
>>
>> +=+=+=+= AFTER
>>
>> {{Page_Title}}
>> {{Flags}}
>> {{Summary_Section|Provides support for creation of arrays of any data
>> type.}}
>>
>> {{JSPrototype|
>>   arrayObj = new Array()
>>   arrayObj = new Array([ size ])
>>   arrayObj = new Array([ element0 [, element1 [, ...[, elementN ]]]])
>> }}
>>
>> {{JSParameter
>> | Name=arrayObj
>> | Required=true
>> | Description=The variable name to which the '''Array''' object is
>> assigned.
>> }}
>>
>> {{JSParameter
>> | Name=size
>> | Required=false
>> | Description=The size of the array. As arrays are zero-based, created
>> elements will have indexes from zero to size -1.
>> }}
>>
>> {{JSParameter
>> | Name=element0,...,elementN
>> | Required=false
>> | Description=The elements to place in the array. This creates an
>> array with n + 1 elements, and a '''length''' of n + 1. Using this
>> syntax, you must supply more than one element.
>> }}
>>
>> Have a look at the parameters above and see if this is good enough as
>> a bottom-up approach to fit into a master design that will come later.
>>
>
>

Received on Monday, 30 December 2013 15:41:37 UTC