Reword and reorder system basics #15
Conversation
mbrookes
force-pushed
the
docs-system-basics
branch
from
cb56bab
to
364006a
Compare
mbrookes
force-pushed
the
docs-system-basics
branch
from
364006a
to
85edf1d
Compare
| @@ -1,87 +1,36 @@ | |||
| # Material-UI System | |||
| # Material-UI style system | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should treat it as a product name, like Material-UI X, Material-UI Admin, Material-UI Blocks, etc.
| # Material-UI style system | |
| # Material-UI System |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should treat it as a product name
I understand your attachment, but two years with no meaningful traction suggests otherwise.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the correlation relationship between the two events?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would explain no traction with a simple argument: no exposure in the docs. Why no exposure in the docs? Because we couldn't use it ourselves. Why we couldn't use it ourselves? Because it was flawed. Why was it flawed? Too slow, missing features, important issues ignored for 2 years.
your attachment
I couldn't care less, outside of making choices that reduce the likeliness of it to work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should treat it as a product name
Let me ask a different question: Why?
What's the correlation relationship between the two events?
What two events? The system package has been available on npm, and publicised in the docs, for two years. Making it a "brand", or something known and used outside of the Material-UI eco system hasn't worked. It didn't worked for @material-ui/styles either, so I don't think it's down to exposure.
no exposure in the docs
It's in the root of the nav.
making choices that reduce the likeliness of it to work
Such as calling it "System"? 🙂 It's too vague. What kind of system, for what purpose? If you'd prefer to keep "Style System" capitalised, we can try that. I don't see what we gain by it, but it's harmless enough.
oliviertassinari
force-pushed
the
feat/sx-prop-docs-page
branch
2 times, most recently
from
fa53759
to
40fe4a7
Compare
|
The diff is too big to fix. |
|
I'm done with mui#23294. I have tried to bring most of your changes into it. Is there something else to improve? :) |
Move picker sources into lab (#4) Update README.md [DatePicker] Refactor pickers tests to testing-library and mocha (#5) [TimePicker] Migrate tests to testing library (#8) [DateTimePicker] Migrate tests (#9) Fix all pickers linter errors (#10) Fix all circular dependencies (#11) * Fix all circular dependencies * Enable mocha eslint rules for typescript tests [test] The last step to a green CI (#15) Migrate pickers docs (#12) Downgrade to withStyles for pickers sources (#16) Add public api exports for pickers components (#17) Consolidate component namespace and theme augmentation (#18) Describe conformance for pickers sub-components (#19) Autogenerate proptypes for typescript sources (#20) Proper build output (#21) Clear migration artifacts (#23) Eslint rule for lower-case test name convention (#24) DateRangePicker (#25) yarn deduplicate Remove GridListTile [DateTimePicker] Fix migration unit tests Fix types Fix typescript types migration issues Fix yarn lerna build (#33) Fix karma tests use window.Touch for CI karma tests Remove more outdated diff noise (#34) Replace not valid formats with valid ISO strings Try to fix CI touch tests Skip tests if Touch events are not supported Fix merge conflicts Actually type-check Fix safari tests Remove lowercase test name rule The casing is up to the test author. We're not the grammar police in tests. Fix lint Format Remove overzealous eslint-disable* Debug failing tests Better debugging Timezones are fun was isoString th efix? Let's find out what's failing and then skip it Branch for safari Skip DateRangePicker in browsers review Matt's review Co-authored-by: Matt <github@nospam.33m.co> format docs:i18n
For discussion, as I'm still not 100% happy with the order and nesting, and have a couple of questions. (I might also have unintentionally changed some intended meaning - let me know.)
I also removed the code diff, sorry. It was adding noise (hard to follow), and making that section disjointed (lump of abstract code between related clauses).