- From: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:48:30 +0000
- To: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
- Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
This all sounds really good. A few questions it brought to my mind. * Are the cited APIs that we've got in progress/documentation available for in any kind of priority order? Would it be worth doing that? This would help me to write the document covering work to do and priorities. * Are we going to cover JavaScript libraries such as jQuery, Raphael, etc. in the APIs section, or would that go in JavaScript, or somewhere separate? You are really just looking at HTML5 (and related/similar) APIs, which is not necessarily wrong, but I thought it was worth raising the question. * On a similar note, are we going to cover 3rd party site APIs, such as Twitter, Flickr, etc.? Getting someone to write something concise and easy to follow about those could be a huge USP for us, for example I tried using the eBay API recently and I gave up because the documentation was completely unusable. But then again, how many people such APIs? Is the demand there, or would it just be a waste of effort? There are obviously much lower hanging fruit than that to get started with. Chris Mills Opera Software, dev.opera.com W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M) On 10 Jan 2013, at 02:01, Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > From this week's general meeting I had the action item to develop a proposal for the API documentation. > > Please review this document and provide comments in this thread. > > The document is not complete, but it lays out the scope of the project and gets the ball rolling. I have not cited any external sources of documentation other than MDN, nor would I call complete either of the lists for documents to import or new documentation. Please provide any pointers to other sources of documentation and any new documentation that you think should be included. > > Could we also discuss this in the Thursday Content meeting - if we're still going to have it? > > Thanks! > > +Scott >
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 16:49:16 UTC