This version has a lot more detail than the docs on mootools.net Is it going to be adopted by the mootools team?
On Aug 17, 4:11 pm, Oskar Krawczyk <[email protected]> wrote: > Just in case some of you missed this gem:http://mootoolified.com/docs/(done > by our own @cheeaun). > > On 2010-08-17, at 16:56, אריה גלזר wrote: > > > > > for getting started there's the great mootorial that covers everything > > there is to know and how to use it. It's how i got started and hooked up > > as for docs - the Moo docs are exactly what they need to be - informative. > > that is what a docs site needs to have. For another example of this kind of > > useful docs you can look at php.net. actualy, the only thing that i miss in > > the moo docs is the ability to simply type in method /function and be > > redirected (such as mootools.net/array.contains). But i already have the > > mootools search bookmarlet so it doesn't matter. > > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Savageman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok, I have more information, here is what I gathered. > > > He said: > > 1. it's indeed very complete, but we need time to get the information > > we want. > > 2. it's lacking a "Getting started". > > 3. There is no quick reference: when we click a class on the left, all > > the methods are shown on the right and all their associated > > documentation is on the same page. As an index page for a class, it > > would be nicer to list all the methods from it, associated with a > > little explanation (like on php.net). > > 4. Also demos are missing. I think they should be merged with the > > documentation. > > 5. There is no categorized topics. The structure organisation only on > > the classes structure. For instance, the Element class has too much > > methods for a human to reasonably make it looks good in his mind. > > Maybe some categories like on the jQuery documentation would be nice > > (attributes, traversing, manipulation). > > > I will add some personal thoughts about it: > > 1. Some things are not entirely clear. To get the ID of an element, we > > can either do .get('id') or .getProperty('id') : what's the > > "recommended" way? > > The .get() method explains we can use any key from the > > Element.Properties hash with a link on it. But when we click on > > Element.Properties, we don't get a list of what it contains. We need > > to guess here and try which attribute can be retrieved this way and > > which can't. > > 2. Some things are well hidden, like the custom events mousenter / > > mouseleave / mousewheel, which never appear in the menus. > > > On an (almost) unrelated topic, all the getter / setter for properties > > mention "attribute" in their description. Why don't call them > > "attributes" then? > > > On Aug 17, 12:55 pm, Oskar Krawczyk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "bad" in what sense, can he elaborate on that? > > > > I never had any problems with the docs - apart from some sections being > > > overly long (but that's a good thing). > > > > Best, > > > Oskar > > > > On 2010-08-17, at 09:00, Savageman wrote: > > > > > Hey, > > > > > When I showed MT to a friend, one of the thing he told me was that the > > > > documentation was... bad. > > > > So before to try and figure out something better, I would like to know > > > > the status on this. Is a new doc planned for MT 2 ? > > > > Which repo should I get if I want to try some things out? > > > > > Thanks. > > > -- > > Arieh Glazer > > אריה גלזר > > 052-5348-561 > > 5561
