- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 03:07:59 -0500
- To: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
- CC: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>, Lance Leonard <Lance.Leonard@microsoft.com>, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>, Julee <julee@adobe.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Hi, PhistucK- Yes, I think we all agree with this. Maintaining separate pages for the 'foo' event, the 'onfoo' object property, and the 'onfoo' attribute (where they are all equivalent) would not only be a maintenance nightmare, but would also be a bit inaccurate. Regards- -Doug On 2/14/13 3:02 AM, PhistucK wrote: > I do not quite understand your example, sorry. > > Anyway, I meant that this check box should make the event appear as an > onevent property on the page of the object (as part of drawing events, > properties and methods), so the information will still be there and the > links, events and properties will still be listed, but all of them will > go to the same page (that includes the combined information) of that > event. The template should, of course, have generic text for explaining > all of the ways of adding that event listener (property, HTML attribute > and addEventListener) that are supported for this event. > > I am not sure all of this is feasible, others may know, but I think this > is the correct way to handle this situation. > This also has the benefit of synchronizing the information, preventing > it from being outdated in one page and up to date in another. > > It is a maintenance win and an accuracy win. Everyone is happy (except > the one who has to implement this beast ;)). > > ☆*PhistucK* > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com > <mailto:scottrowe@google.com>> wrote: > > Consider the IDBTransaction onerror event. It fires not on the > IDBTransaction error event, but on the DOMError event. > > Do you propose to remove the onerror event handler property from the > IDBTransaction object, and assume that by providing the DOMError doc > with a checkbox that the user of IDBTransaction will just "know" > that there is an event handler in IDBTransaction for the error event? > > I think that is a dangerous assumption, as it relies on "implicit" > knowledge. We achieve greater clarity if we are explicit about which > events the object handles. > > Even though the IDBTransaction object does have an error property, > which returns the DOMError event, without the onerror event handler, > explicitly, the developer does not know how to name the function > that handles the DOMError event. > > No, folks, our job is not to make it easier to document these APIs. > Our job is to make them easier to use - even for novices who are not > yet steeped in the JavaScript event handling model. This is why we > follow the specifications to the letter, we do not take shortcuts to > please ourselves, and we are explicit about every object in the > model and how it is used. I strongly recommend we keep it that way. > > +Scott > > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 <tel:2013> at 1:01 PM, Lance Leonard > <Lance.Leonard@microsoft.com <mailto:Lance.Leonard@microsoft.com>> > wrote: > > We had a similar conversation when we reorganized our content > and ended up combining the property page with the event page[1]. > > The general thinking was that it was easier on the novice to > have a single page to land on using search than to maintain > separate pages with similar content. > > I'm fine either way, but do tend to prefer simplifying a > presentation when it makes sense to. > > Hope this helps... > > -- Lance > > Links: > > [1] - The current version of the abort event from MSDN: > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/ms536785(v=vs.85).aspx > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Mills [mailto:cmills@opera.com > <mailto:cmills@opera.com>] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 <tel:2013> 11:56 AM > To: PhistucK > Cc: Julee; Scott Rowe; public-webplatform@w3.org > <mailto:public-webplatform@w3.org> > Subject: Re: A categorization/placing problem - event/property pages > > This kind of approach would make sense to me, however I will > defer decision making/handling of these to the professionals > (i.e. Scott) in future ;-) > > Chris Mills > Opera Software, dev.opera.com <http://dev.opera.com> > W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org > <http://webplatform.org> Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and > Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M) > > On 13 Feb 2013 <tel:2013>, at 18:49, PhistucK > <phistuck@gmail.com <mailto:phistuck@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > When I posted about this (among other issues) a few months > ago, I think the initial conclusion was that we should only have > event pages (abort) and have a check box in the event template > in order to specify whether it may function as a property > (onabort) and another check box in the event template in order > to specify whether it may function as a standard event listener > (object.addEventListener("abort", handler, false)). > > > > I think having two (or more, if you include the dreadful > inline HTML event listeners) pages for most events is wasteful. > > Perhaps we should also have a check box for its inline HTML > event listeners attribute and a field for the HTML element, I do > not know. > > > > ☆PhistucK > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 <tel:2013> at 8:39 PM, Julee > <julee@adobe.com <mailto:julee@adobe.com>> wrote: > > Is there any place where we are drawing the relationship > between html element attributes (onerror), object properties > (onerror), events (error), and event listeners (error, handler)? > > > > Or are we planning on separating out each manifestation and > documenting them separately? > > > > Thanks much. > > > > Julee > > ---------------------------- > > julee@adobe.com <mailto:julee@adobe.com> > > @adobejulee > > > > From: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com > <mailto:scottrowe@google.com>> > > Date: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 <tel:2013> 9:48 AM > > To: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com <mailto:cmills@opera.com>> > > Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org > <mailto:public-webplatform@w3.org>" <public-webplatform@w3.org > <mailto:public-webplatform@w3.org>> > > Subject: Re: A categorization/placing problem - > event/property pages > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > Let me lend some perspective to this, in line... > > +Scott > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 <tel:2013> at 9:03 AM, Chris Mills > <cmills@opera.com <mailto:cmills@opera.com>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am mailing to discuss a consistency problem we have come up > against in the properties/events pages on webplatform.org > <http://webplatform.org>; I have been discussing this with > Frederic Hemberger, who took part in the Berlin doc sprint. The > question is, how to categorise properyy and event pages. > > > > Crawling through the properties list > (http://docs.webplatform.org/w/index.php?title=Category:API_Object_Properties) > we have 40 event related properties: > > > > apis/file/properties/onabort > > apis/indexeddb/IDBTransaction/onabort > > apis/webrtc/RTCPeerConnection/onaddstream > > apis/webrtc/MediaStreamTrackList/onaddtrack > > apis/webaudio/ScriptProcessorNode/onaudioprocess > > apis/indexeddb/IDBOpenDBRequest/onblocked > > apis/indexeddb/IDBVersionChangeRequest/onblocked > > apis/appcache/ApplicationCache/oncached > > apis/appcache/ApplicationCache/onchecking > > apis/indexeddb/IDBTransaction/oncomplete > > apis/webrtc/RTCPeerConnection/ondatachannel > > apis/appcache/ApplicationCache/ondownloading > > apis/webrtc/MediaStream/onended > > etc. > > > > First, to level-set here, these are termed "event handlers" > and treated in the specifications as properties. We've followed > suit in the API docs. > > > > > > (Also, the File API is the only API listing those as > > "apis/file/properties/<propertyName>" instead of > > "apis/file/<propertyName>".) > > > > This was a mistake. This property belongs to the > msStreamReader object, and it's page is now located properly at > apis/file/MSStreamReader/onabort. > > > > However, it may be argued that all of the > Microsoft-proprietary documentation should be removed from WPD > as it is not standard. But that's an issue for a separate thread. > > > > > > On the other hand, the event page lists 54 API (61 if you > include SVG) and 107 DOM event pages, rather than their related > properties. > > > > The questions is, how should we make these more consistent? > > > > DOM events and API object events are treated differently. > Consistency would confuse the issue rather than clarify. > > > > > > 1. We could list these as event pages primarily, but then > have another > > page for the event property in each case. So for example > > > > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/apis/file/events/onabort > could be the > > main page, with all the info on the event and its related > property > > (but we'd be best changing onabort to abort) > > > > No. Under no circumstance should we change the names of API > object properties. These are defined in the spec. The event is > "abort," the event handler is "onabort." > > > > Incidentally, the "abort" event has yet to be documented. > We're on it. > > > > > > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/apis/file/properties/onabort > could > > just have a minimum of information on it, but point to the > above page > > > > 2. We could do basically the same, but have the property > pages as the main pages, and point the event pages to those. > > > > 3. We could just have the event pages, and make them cover > both the properties and events: > > > > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/apis/file/events/abort > > > > And maybe have a silent redirect on the similar property page. > > > > We (myself and Frederic) would rather go with moving the > 40odd existing property pages to the Events listing and not > treat them as "real" properties for the sake of documentation > consistency (although this might be less precise from an > implementation point of view). > > > > The way we are currently representing events and event > handlers in the API documentation is correct. We maintain the > structure prescribed in the specifications. > > > > > > Otherwise, we'd need to move all API events to properties (if > you think of DOM events as a "special breed"), and/or make > duplicate (or at least very similar) pages. We are more > interested here in what is most implementable/findable, rather > than what is most technically correct. > > > > > > DOM events, on the other hand, do appear to warrant a > different treatment, particularly because they are shared across > many different objects. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Chris Mills > > Opera Software, dev.opera.com <http://dev.opera.com> > > W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org > <http://webplatform.org> Author of "Practical > > CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M) > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 08:08:18 UTC