- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:14:31 -0800
- To: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
- CC: Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com>, Eliot Graff <Eliot.Graff@microsoft.com>, Eliezer Bernart <eliezer.bernart@gmail.com>, Julee Burdekin <jburdeki@adobe.com>, Renoir Boulanger <renoir@w3.org>, WebPlatform Public List <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Hi, PhistucK– While I'm sympathetic to your reasoning, I think that's something we can do manually after the import is done, rather than get it perfect from the start. We need to get closure on this import. Regards- -Doug On 1/28/14 1:52 AM, PhistucK wrote: > Why are the members listed manually instead of being drawn from the > hierarchy or from a property like in /dom? > > For example - > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/dom/CharacterData > > > ☆*PhistucK* > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Max Polk <maxpolk@gmail.com > <mailto:maxpolk@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 1/25/2014 5:21 PM, Max Polk wrote: >> I discovered a scheme to obtain all the original urls for the >> JavaScript reference pages > > Done. A new round of imports has completed. The pages should all > have links back to the correct article now. Also, now using > JS_Syntax_Format template instead of Js_Object_Format, per direction > from Eliezer. > > At this point I have no outstanding issues. > > I noticed a small glitch, there are a few tables that seem to have > gotten munged such as the Number page's "Properties" and "Methods" > tables: > > http://docs.webplatform.org/test/javascript/Number > > Half of the links to subpages point to the Object subpage instead of > the Number subpage (like Object/constructor instead of > Number/constructor) and would need manual updates after the import. > I'm thinking this was an artifact created during the mass page > renaming that went through several rounds. All the right pages are > there, just these two tables seem off in this one page. Maybe we > need to spot check other tables to make sure it's localized and not > widespread. I apologize, we had lots of regex replacements going on > and it must have slipped through my fingers. > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 17:14:42 UTC