- From: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:46:22 +0100
- To: Julee Burdekin <jburdeki@adobe.com>
- Cc: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>, Webplatform mailing list <public-webplatform@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com>
On 12 Jun 2013, at 02:02, Julee Burdekin <jburdeki@adobe.com> wrote: > Scott & Chris: > > As far as information architecture goes, do either of you want to review and comment on the naming structures before Max uploads his first batch?[1][2] I've not seen anything beyond what you have brought up. This looks pretty good. > > For instance, a couple of things I'm noticing: > • Node is called "Objects" instead of "Object" So here, are we using lowercase where the node is a general identifier (e.g. arguments) versus uppercase where the node is a specific piece of syntax (e.g. Array)…in which case the upper versus lower case makes more sense... > • Max is using initial caps, where our convention is to use lowercase unless required. So, operator, statements, constants, etc., should all be lower case, no? …and goes along with our earlier convention.Yes, we did say use lowercase unless required, e.g. when a function name demands it (such as getTimezoneOffset). It looks like Max has done this, no? > • Operator pages are named in plain English (i.e.: Operators/Division Assignment instead of using "/="), which makes sense, but should we align this with the at rules in CSS (i.e.: wiki/css/atrules/@media)? I think using plain English is better, as some of the operator characters could clash with URLs, for example division could become //, and general sibling selector could become /~, both of which could cause problems.
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 08:46:29 UTC