- From: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 22:36:44 +0300
- To: Julee <julee@adobe.com>
- Cc: Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com>, Webplatform List <public-webplatform@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABc02_+knbge2aBs-TVqkAPUOrVqOGTWJb0zxokHvcrnj_4o5Q@mail.gmail.com>
If you can take a stab at it first, I think it would be best. I will go over it and see if something needs altering. Thank you! ☆*PhistucK* On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote: > Hi, PhistucK & Max: > > We spoke about this thread in the general meeting today. You're closing on > a final schema, so let's create a proposal page for the JavaScript > reference. Then, we can ask some ECMAScript language experts to review it. > > Do one of you want to create a page at, say, > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Projects/javascript/reference? > > If you want me to take a stab at it first, so you two can go in and > finalize it, let me know. > > Regards. > > Julee > ---------------------------- > julee@adobe.com > @adobejulee > > From: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> > Date: Friday, July 12, 2013 2:57 AM > To: Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com> > Cc: julee <julee@adobe.com>, Webplatform List <public-webplatform@w3.org> > > Subject: Re: JavaScript page naming, round B > > I believe we have settled on "javascript" (versus "js"), since > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/javascript exists and > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/js does not, so "javascript" is the top > level. > > Regarding the "objects" level... I still think it should be "Global", for > correctness and accuracy reasons. I am not an authority here, anyway, so > others have to agree in order to make this a consensus (but I feel like I > am the only one with this "Global" opinion). > > > ☆*PhistucK* > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The first link: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2012Nov/0161.html >> Conveys the principle: >> Remove the "intermediate" pages (objects, events, methods, and >> properties) >> from the namespace to keep the URLs shorter: >> Format: >> apis/nameOfApi/apiObject/(event|method|property) >> Example: >> apis/webrtc/MediaStreamTrackList/length >> Listing page for all things in the api: >> apis/nameOfApi >> And that does seem to be fully contained in: >> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Creating_API_pages >> >> >> The second link and it's follow on discussion: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2013Feb/0071.html >> Asks a question about combining content for event/property magic: >> apis/indexeddb/IDBTransaction/onerror >> apis/indexeddb/IDBTransaction/error >> But no such magic is defined by the JavaScript language. >> >> >> I'm ignoring the architecture page since it's marked as old: >> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Architecture >> I'm ignoring the 48K "mother of all index pages" since it has spotty >> coverage of JavaScript: >> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Content/Topic_Hierarchy >> >> >> So I believe we are now in agreement. This page seems like the true >> reference: >> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Content/Reference_articles >> And we are here for page names: >> js/operators >> js/statements >> And all I need to do is add: >> js/objects >> >> That leaves two decisions left to vote on: >> >> Decision 1: use "js" or "javascript" as the top-level? >> js/operators --versus-- javascript/operators >> js/statements --versus-- javascript/statements >> Decision 2: accept "js/objects" as the parent of all built-in objects of >> importance: >> javascript/objects >> >> >> >> On 7/11/2013 2:05 AM, PhistucK wrote: >> >> Actually, I am not sure the pages to which you linked are up to date or >> reflect the future we want to have, but maybe the current situation (before >> the MSDN import). >> >> The discussions I could find - >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2012Nov/0161.html >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2013Feb/0071.html >> >> It looks like every such discussion did not result in any action (a >> wiki update) or in total agreement. Perhaps it was discussed further in the >> content meetings that (I think) Julee had back then, I did not participate >> in those. >> >> ...[clip]... >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 19:37:51 UTC