- From: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:17:54 +0300
- To: Eliezer Bernart <eliezerbernart@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webplatform@w3.org
Hi Eliezer, Thanks for spending so much time researching this issue and writing this! In general I agree, but I have a few comments: - The proposed URL structure is needlessly deep. For example, for frequency you'd end up with: docs.webplatform.org/wiki/css/values/other/frequency. This is not guessable and I’d rather have guessable URLs where people who know the general structure would just type them in. - What does css/values/modules even mean? The fact that some data types are more complex and defined elsewhere does not matter for whoever is reading the docs, they should still be under values/. That’s why we have the Related specifications field. - In general, I think we should keep the URL structure shallow. css/values/[type] is already deep. We don't need more levels. - notations shouldn't be under values/, we have a separate css/functions page type, which is easier to guess too. I also think separate functions should have separate pages. Cheers, Lea Lea Verou W3C developer relations http://w3.org/people/all#lea ✿ http://lea.verou.me ✿ @leaverou On Jul 27, 2013, at 01:25, Eliezer Bernart <eliezerbernart@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Some time ago Lea made an observation about duplicate pages, mostly of > them about CSS data types, in that occasion Doug and I updated the > css/units and css/data_types pages making a little bit more clear and > organized. [0] > > This week on IRC channel, Julee and I talked again about this subject, > and how we all are seeing on the mailing list a lot of questions about > data types and units organization. Starting from W3C documentation > that already exists, we elaborated a structure to discuss the best > model inside Webplatform docs for that information. > > Right now the pages that point to these contents are (some of them > created by me and Doug in the last update): > > + Data Types = http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/css/data_types > - Text values = /css/data_types/text > - Color units = /css/data_types/color > - Length units = /css/data_types/length > - Angle units = /css/data_types/angle > - Numeric units = /css/data_types/numeric > - Resolution units = /css/data_types/resolution > - Time units = /css/data_types/time > - Frequency units = /css/data_types/frequency > > + Units = http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/css/units > > > Based on CSS Values and Units[1] and Syntax and basic data types[2], > the structure proposed is: > > /css/values > |_ /textual > |_ /keywords > |_ css-wide keywords > |_ author-defined identifiers > |_ /string > |_ /url > |_ /numeric > |_ /integer > |_ /number > |_ /percentage > |_ % > |_ /length > |_ absolute > |_ cm, mm, in, pt, pc, px > |_ relative > |_ em, ex, ch, rem > |_ vw, vh, vmin, vmax > |_ /others > |_ /angle > |_ deg, grad, rad, turn > |_ /frequency > |_ Hz, kHz > |_ /resolution > |_ dpi, dpcm, dppx > |_ /time > |_ s, ms > |_ /modules > |_ color [3] > |_ colors_by_hue > |_ colors_by_name > |_ colors_by_saturation > |_ user-defined_system_colors > |_ image [4] > |_ position [5] > |_ /notations > |_ attr > |_ calc > |_ counter > |_ toggle > > (New pages are represented by '/' before the name) > > In the modules node there are the data types that are defined in other > specifications, so, should we can just put those at the top level > after |_/css (i. e.: color, position) or do you think there's > information that would live on a modules page, and then these data > types live under modules? > > It's important remember that the values under notation's node > represent complex data types, in module's node the ones which have > information defined in other pages, and the others nodes are composed > by the primitive values. > > About the units page [6], I think that is important keep in a page all > the possible values, with a link to the data type that each one > represents. These unit pages would live under their related data type. > I believe that the actual structure is perfect, what do you think? > > Then there are data types on SVG. There is some differences to data > types on CSS, so probably these others informations should be at > /svg/[data_type], following some structure in the same way as CSS, > just so we do not mix up the things. > > About the pages' content, themselves, there are some things missing: > how-to examples, some better descriptions, some units. But let's work > on the structure first. > > Thanks for the attention. All feedback and opinions will be welcome. > This is a really important point that needed to be defined. > > [0] = http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2013Jun/0055.html > [1] = http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/ > [2] = http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#values > [3] = http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/css/color > [4] = http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-images/ > [5] = http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-background-position > [6] = http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/css/units > > Eliezer > > @eliezerbernart > eliezerb > >
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2013 18:31:31 UTC