Re: Working upload

Yeah, Max & Eliezer!

Question: I’m not understanding what the “manual section” is when you’re talking about when referring to the  ==Properties==, ==Functions==, ==Methods== sections. Why can’t these be their own sections, like the Examples or Remarks section?

Also, the remarks section is made up of “Remarks” and “Main content”. Can we use the same as in the properties template: Notes Section: Usage (optional), Notes (optional), Import Notes (only used for content that had nowhere else for input scripts to put it):

{{Notes_Section
|Usage=yadayadayada
|Notes=yadayadayada
|Import_Notes=yadayadayada
}}

Thanks!

Julee
-------------------
Julee Burdekin
Content Strategist
Adobe Web Platform
@adobejulee
julee@adobe.com

From: Eliezer Bernart <eliezer.bernart@gmail.com<mailto:eliezer.bernart@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 at 9:29 AM
To: Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com<mailto:maxpolk@gmail.com>>
Cc: WebPlatform Public List <public-webplatform@w3.org<mailto:public-webplatform@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Working upload

Hey Max,

Awesome work again!

I have some issues on Examples section [1], where all the content is inside the "Examples" parameter, when actually there is an inner template to that: "Single Example" [2].

About the "Return Value" [3], could we add it in the "JS Syntax" template and display it under a main label ==Return value==?

Well, originally I did the JS Object [4] semantic form, it was to be just for the JS Objects, then the ==Properties==, ==Functions==, ==Methods== sections should be some templates with queries to list the pages under other topics.

The JS Object doesn't have a "Manual Section", but for now we could duplicate this form to "JS Basic", add a manual section (as the "Main content" field in {{Basic Page}}[5])  and apply to all the JS pages. Then later we can define the topic clusters, design the pages and build a specific semantic form for each one of the Categories.

Which one of the topics (Properties, Functions, Methods, and so on) do you think that should have their own form?

[1] http://docs.webplatform.org/test/javascript/Array/constructor

[2] http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Template:Single_Example

[3] http://docs.webplatform.org/test/javascript/Array/isArray

[4] http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Form:JS_Object

[5] http://docs.webplatform.org/test/Form:Basic




Eliezer

@eliezerbernart
eliezerb


On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com<mailto:maxpolk@gmail.com>> wrote:
A working JavaScript page upload was done on the test wiki:

http://docs.webplatform.org/test/javascript


Give it a look if you have time.  See if there are any issues with how the pages look, and the form editing (selecting "Edit" and not "Edit Source" from the Edit drop down).  The major sections on the page are in special form fields, editable as plain text, rather than Mediawiki format.

Instead of {{Basic Page}} I'm using {{Topics | JS Object}} to get the form editing to work.  I assume that's the correct template to use for all JavaScript pages.  Eliezer did good work to get the templates and forms to work correctly, and gave me advice on kinds of templates to use.

I only noticed one problem.  The ==Properties==, ==Functions==, ==Methods==, and other manual sections did not appear in the "Manual sections" part of the special form edit when editing the page, so something may be wrong, but I'm unsure what.  Does the {{Topics | JS Object}} template inhibit manual sections?  Or should we use another template instead?  When {{Basic Page}} was used, these manual sections did appear in the "Main content:" form field area.