Issue 29324309: Noissue - Update development build links for Firefox extensions (Closed)
|
Created:
Aug. 19, 2015, 11:05 a.m. by Wladimir Palant Modified:
Aug. 20, 2015, 11:19 a.m. Reviewers:
saroyanm Visibility:
Public. |
DescriptionNoissue - Update development build links for Firefox extensions
Patch Set 1 #
Total comments: 11
Patch Set 2 : Changed tag #MessagesTotal messages: 7
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... File pages/development-builds.html (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... pages/development-builds.html:23: ({{amo-listing-note versions ending with <code><fix>beta</fix></code> are development builds}}) Why we are using code tag, shouldn't this be <strong> ? https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... pages/development-builds.html:23: ({{amo-listing-note versions ending with <code><fix>beta</fix></code> are development builds}}) I assume in future we should specify English translation in one place (not duplicate it) ? https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... pages/development-builds.html:58: <a href="/devbuilds/abpwatcher/00latest.xpi">{{s25 Diagnostics for <fix>Adblock Plus</fix>}}</a> Shouldn't we also update abpwatcher link ?
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... File pages/development-builds.html (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... pages/development-builds.html:23: ({{amo-listing-note versions ending with <code><fix>beta</fix></code> are development builds}}) On 2015/08/19 15:39:36, saroyanm wrote: > I assume in future we should specify English translation in one place (not > duplicate it) ? Yes, there is a proposal for that - not implemented yet. https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... pages/development-builds.html:23: ({{amo-listing-note versions ending with <code><fix>beta</fix></code> are development builds}}) On 2015/08/19 15:39:37, saroyanm wrote: > Why we are using code tag, shouldn't this be <strong> ? No, bold text is very attention-grabbing, definitely not what we want here. IMHO <code> is the right tag here. https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... pages/development-builds.html:58: <a href="/devbuilds/abpwatcher/00latest.xpi">{{s25 Diagnostics for <fix>Adblock Plus</fix>}}</a> On 2015/08/19 15:39:36, saroyanm wrote: > Shouldn't we also update abpwatcher link ? No, Diagnostics aren't hosted on AMO. We still need to decide what to do about these development builds.
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... File pages/development-builds.html (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... pages/development-builds.html:23: ({{amo-listing-note versions ending with <code><fix>beta</fix></code> are development builds}}) On 2015/08/19 18:32:06, Wladimir Palant wrote: > On 2015/08/19 15:39:37, saroyanm wrote: > > Why we are using code tag, shouldn't this be <strong> ? > > No, bold text is very attention-grabbing, definitely not what we want here. IMHO > <code> is the right tag here. <strong> doesn't have to be bold, it just used to give importance to the wrapped content, here as far as I can see we are using <code> to highlight the "beta", while it's not a text that represent computer code I think will be more reasonable to use more relevant tag. The question is what is the purpose of highlighting "beta" and to understand what semantic tag we need to use in similar cases. https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... pages/development-builds.html:23: ({{amo-listing-note versions ending with <code><fix>beta</fix></code> are development builds}}) On 2015/08/19 18:32:06, Wladimir Palant wrote: > On 2015/08/19 15:39:36, saroyanm wrote: > > I assume in future we should specify English translation in one place (not > > duplicate it) ? > > Yes, there is a proposal for that - not implemented yet. Can you please send me the link to the proposal, if it's available online ? because I currently having similar problem for adblockbrowser.org https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... pages/development-builds.html:58: <a href="/devbuilds/abpwatcher/00latest.xpi">{{s25 Diagnostics for <fix>Adblock Plus</fix>}}</a> On 2015/08/19 18:32:06, Wladimir Palant wrote: > On 2015/08/19 15:39:36, saroyanm wrote: > > Shouldn't we also update abpwatcher link ? > > No, Diagnostics aren't hosted on AMO. We still need to decide what to do about > these development builds. I see
https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... File pages/development-builds.html (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... pages/development-builds.html:23: ({{amo-listing-note versions ending with <code><fix>beta</fix></code> are development builds}}) We generally use <code> when referring to file names or URLs. But - whatever, changed it into `<em>`. This change is long overdue, not worth arguing about details.
LGTM https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... File pages/development-builds.html (right): https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29324309/diff/29324310/pages/development-b... pages/development-builds.html:23: ({{amo-listing-note versions ending with <code><fix>beta</fix></code> are development builds}}) On 2015/08/20 09:52:40, Wladimir Palant wrote: > We generally use <code> when referring to file names or URLs. But - whatever, > changed it into `<em>`. This change is long overdue, not worth arguing about > details. I do think referring file names makes more sense, but not in this case IMO, sorry for the long discussion I just think that make sense to also consider semantic behavior of tags and hopefully in future we will make our website more consistent.
|
