W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcgm-wg@w3.org > September 2008

in-line "new" styling

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:10:24 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20080907140614.0cdda7c0@localhost>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Hi Thierry,

I have been playing a little bit with the suggested in-line "new" styling...

At 09:21 AM 8/20/2008 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:
><style>
>   .new { background-color: #f8e691; border: solid red; border-width: 
> 2px;padding: 0.5em; }
></style>
>....
><div class="new">
>The setView() method is introduced on WebCGMPicture as a new feature in 
>webCGM 2.1 .....
></div>

It makes some nice results!
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-Config.html
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM.html#geometric-transform
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM.html#webcgmrect

If applied to the local TOCs, the results are a little funny, but we could 
skip that markup:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM.html

But I think it might also have some more basic problems.  For example, in 
the DOM chapter, the "IDL definitions" are all within <pre> elements, and 
you can't put markup into <pre> (at least you can't put <div> 
there).  Interestingly, both IE and FF render the styling.  But it doesn't 
validate as XHTML 1.0 Transitional.
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM.html#L5095

So we would have to tag only the detailed text (in the <dl> lists) 
following the IDL, and leave the IDL unmarked.  Similarly for the whole 
ECMAScript Chapter.

Therefore, the highlighting would not be complete, in the sense that it 
leaves some substantive stuff unmarked.  I wonder if this might concern and 
confuse some reviewers?  What do you think about the completeness issue?

(There is also another, minor completeness issue, because we must choose 
some threshold of too-low substantiveness and cut off applying the markup 
below that level.)

The idea does have the nice benefit of easily focusing people on new stuff; 
and keeping them away from old stuff.

If we can't make the in-line markup idea work, we still have:

1.) Appendix B: "What's new in WebCGM 2.1", which is hyperlinked to the 
major destination(s) of each topic.
2.) Appendix D:  "Change Log", which is linked to smaller individual changes.
3.) A heads-up, pointing to Appendix B, in section 1.8 of the Introduction 
chapter.

Thoughts?  Should we still pursue the in-line markup?

-Lofton.

P.S.  Do you think Accessibility folks might have problems with the 
markup?  (It affects low-vision people by reducing the text contrast.)
Received on Sunday, 7 September 2008 21:11:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 7 September 2008 21:11:14 GMT