- From: PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 08:39:13 +0300
- To: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
- Cc: Julee Burdekin <julee@adobe.com>, "Rob^_^" <iecustomizer@hotmail.com>, List WebPlatform public <public-webplatform@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABc02_JRR12MSOL8otHNPfXDwpVykBtXC8=BjGwXUYksPPNaVg@mail.gmail.com>
That sounds great. I am not sure I can work on it, though. I will let you know if I do. ☆*PhistucK* On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Amelia Bellamy-Royds < amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with those arguments, but I don't think a custom script is a good > solution. > > I am fairly certain that the desired flexibility can be achieved by: > > (a) Creating a new parent category and making the following sub-categories > of it: Javascript data types; Javascript objects; and DOM objects/interfaces > > (b) Setting the form to generate the option list from all pages in the new > parent category ( > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Forms/Defining_forms#Autocompletion > ). > > (C) Changing the property type from "enumeration" to "page" and removing > the "allowed values" list > > There would probably also need to be some changes to the templates so that > the object type only shows up as "RangeError" and not > "dom/Selection/RangeError" (the full page name). > > The net result would be that if you wanted to list a given object or > interface type as the return value of a method, all you would have to do is > make sure that a reference page for that object or interface existed and > was properly categorized. > > If anyone with a love of all things Semantic MediaWiki (or a desire to > learn!) is able to make that happen, please do. Feel free to contact me > directly if you want to bounce around ideas about how to implement it. > > If no one else takes control, I will look at it more closely later in the > summer when I start working on the SVG templates. > > AmeliaBR > > > > > > On 14 July 2014 12:22, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is a major obstacle at the moment (and has been since the >> beginning), unfortunately. >> I do not think this should be a closed list. Any interface, prototype or >> class can be a "javascript data type". We should not need to explicitly add >> types, this does not scale and makes contributors needlessly dependent on >> administrators in order to finish articles. >> If it must be a closed list (or if it cannot be updated at real time) due >> to a Wikimedia/Semantic Wiki limitation, then perhaps an automated script >> that runs every night or every hour and updates this list according to all >> of the API Interface (I am not sure regarding the name of the page >> template, sorry) names. >> >> >> ☆*PhistucK* >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Julee Burdekin <julee@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, Rob! >>> >>> There is a Range object in the spec.[1] So I would add it. But where? >>> I noticed the ES6 draft separates out the language & specification types.[2] >>> >>> Maybe we should have a separate type section for specifications? >>> >>> What do others think? >>> >>> J >>> >>> [1] >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Traversal-Range/ecma-script-binding.html >>> [2] https://people.mozilla.org/~jorendorff/es6-draft.html (see table >>> of contents) >>> >>> ------------------- >>> Julee Burdekin >>> Content Strategist >>> Adobe Web Platform >>> @adobejulee >>> julee@adobe.com >>> >>> From: Rob^_^ <iecustomizer@hotmail.com> >>> Date: Monday, July 14, 2014 at 1:35 AM >>> To: WebPlatform Public List <public-webplatform@w3.org> >>> Subject: Javascript data types >>> Resent-From: WebPlatform Public List <public-webplatform@w3.org> >>> Resent-Date: Monday, July 14, 2014 at 1:36 AM >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> re: http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/dom/Range/cloneRange >>> >>> as Range and RangeError are not in the list at >>> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/Property:Javascript_data_type >>> >>> I end up with a nonsense Return Value description.... >>> >>> “Returns an object of type Object” >>> [object Range] >>> >>> I am pressed for time, so I have flagged the item as almost ready.... >>> awaiting Range object to js data-types. >>> >>> Comments/Advice? >>> >>> ...seems to me that the js object types should be open to editor >>> discretion as ‘objects’ can be anything one wants.... >>> >>> var WPO={‘toString’:function(){return ‘[object WPO]’;}} >>> >>> there are ‘core’ data-types... number, date, boolean, string, regex and >>> Array, but what were once ‘object’ can now be [object Anything] >>> >>> eg. var test=2; typeof test returns ‘number’ >>> >>> Regards. >>> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 05:40:21 UTC