- From: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:38:31 -0800
- To: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHZLcPpJPTYAB2UxbYN9SZt+x-=7YhRpakdLhh-q-P7Rdm77hg@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Chris, My two bits in line... On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org> wrote: > 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. > The list of extant APIs is not prioritized - if it were, xhr wouldn't be last! I have added a priority column so that we can adjust and sort the order as we see fit. We started this without a eye toward priority - just to evaluate the problem and scope the work, but now we should establish priorities. Good call! > > * 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. > I'm inclined to say that libraries are beyond the scope of this effort. There are so many, and most are documented well enough. Furthermore, the user of a library is more likely to get the documentation from the library itself. I think we should focus on HTML5 JavasScript APIs. > > * 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. > Again, and for similar reasons, I think this is out of scope. However, we could consider reaching out to 3rd parties to get them to publish their docs on WPD. +Scott > > > 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 17:38:58 UTC