Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Documentation: Guide update: Updates to "Basic Scene" Guide #5213

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

diarmidmackenzie
Copy link
Contributor

Description:

2nd of what will in fact be 4 updates to bring external glicth examples up-to-date & into the A-Frame repo, per #5207.

  • Bring code from Glitch into A-Frame Examples
  • Code up-to-date with latest versions
  • Code and documentation match

@diarmidmackenzie diarmidmackenzie changed the title Updates to "Basic Scene" Guide Documentation: Guide update: Updates to "Basic Scene" Guide Jan 12, 2023
@diarmidmackenzie
Copy link
Contributor Author

Moved from examples\showcase to examples\docs.

@diarmidmackenzie
Copy link
Contributor Author

Following up on this PR & also #5211

I believe both can be merged. Unresolved issues that came up in review were:

auto-sync to glitch. Technically complicated. #5222 tracks the options here:
whether to refer to ../../../dist/aframe-master.js or aframe.io/releases/[release]/aframe.min.js - we agreed the best option is to refer to dist, with a comment indicating how to use aframe.io when copy/pasting the code. 5214 and 5215 already merged using this pattern. If we implement sync-to-glitch, it will be possible to adjust the code as part of the sync operation so that it works on glitch without a local aframe library.
#5211 (comment) - unfortunately it doesn't look like any good options available here. As per #5211 (comment), embedme is promising, but will create maintenance pain as code snippets have to be referenced by line number, rather than by tags.
While it would be nice to solve some of the above issues, none is simple to solve, and I don't see a good case for keeping outdated example code in the meantime.

So on the basis that we merged #5124 and #5215 already, I think we should be OK to merge this one & #5211

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants