W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Style sheet for W3C version of the spec

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:04:09 +1100
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090205050409.GG2051@arc.mcc.id.au>

Karl Dubost:
> I had proposed a long time ago to Mike this.
>
> CSS file
> http://www.la-grange.net/2009/02/04/w3c-tr.css
> Rendering
> http://www.la-grange.net/2009/02/04/w3c-spec-css.png

Looks nice.  Anyway, Ian says on IRC:

  <Hixie> heycam: regarding the style sheet, i really don't want to go
    there. historically, we've had problems whenever specs don’t stick
    closely to the official style sheet (e.g. CSS1's marble background).
    It also dilutes the W3C brand if the specs have different styles. I
    would recommend instead asking the pubteam to update their styles,
    so that all specs could benefit, not just hmtl.
  — http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090205#l-89

Perhaps a W3C staff member could assure Ian that using
/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-ED plus local changes would be acceptable?  The
additional styles I suggested in my previous mail restored headings to
W3C blue, made the <hr> above the abstract visible again, and reduced
some of the vertical spacing in the content above the abstract to make
it similar enough to other W3C specs.  There’s plenty of variability
between different W3C specs as it is, so to me it would seems to be fine
if the major styles were kept the same (format of the header at the top
of the document, page background, font choice).  I don’t think there’s a
real issue with diluting the brand.

I don’t think it’s acceptable to leave the W3C copy be substantially
less readable/usable than the WHATWG copy, as it is at the moment.

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 05:04:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:01 UTC