/presentation-api

New issue

Make sure all IDL members have "dfn" in prose #397

Closed
tidoust opened this Issue Dec 21, 2016 · 1 comment

Comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
2 participants
@tidoust @mfoltzgoogle
@tidoust
Contributor

tidoust commented Dec 21, 2016

ReSpec shipped a new feature yesterday that warns about missing definitions in prose for IDL members.

ReSpec now reports 25 warnings on the Presentation API, some of them we should fix (e.g. binaryType, connection properties). Now, ReSpec also complains about the interface names themselves, where it makes sense to me to have the IDL be the definition, as done in the Presentation API. I filed an issue against ReSpec: w3c/respec#997

@mfoltzgoogle mfoltzgoogle added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 5, 2017

@tidoust @mfoltzgoogle tidoust + mfoltzgoogle Issue #397 - Make sur all IDL terms have <dfn> in prose (#403) 
* Issue 397 - Make sur all IDL terms have <dfn> in prose

Done:

- All IDL terms have <dfn> in prose
- Added constructor logic for custom Events
- Added missing reference to Web Messaging spec
- Linked terms to definition whenever possible
- Improved support for linking to methods with parentheses: "start()"
- Occurrences of "presentation" that should link to "controlling browsing context" now effectively link to it
- Occurrences of "Presentation" that should link to the interface definition now effectively link to it

Notes:

- No way to define an idiom "presentation" and an interface "Presentation" using ReSpec, so "presentation" (as an idiom) links are hardcoded
- Some definitions are not real definitions (e.g. BinaryType is merely defined as the type of the binaryType attribute), but they do not seem to warrant proper definitions.
- Description of custom events constructors could be turned into real algorithms but that seems straightforward enough not to require crisper language.

* Tidy
 e2a0b1d
@mfoltzgoogle
Contributor

mfoltzgoogle commented Jan 9, 2017

I believe this should be addressed by PR #403.

mfoltzgoogle closed this Jan 9, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment