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

update Re: in-line "new" styling

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:31:07 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>


It is possible to find Valid markup, based on <span>:

(I had to tag each line individually.   Else they overlapped and obscured 
each other if I tagged 6 lines with one <span>.)


At 03:10 PM 9/7/2008 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:

>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:
>>   .new { background-color: #f8e691; border: solid red; border-width: 
>> 2px;padding: 0.5em; }
>><div class="new">
>>The setView() method is introduced on WebCGMPicture as a new feature in 
>>webCGM 2.1 .....
>It makes some nice results!
>If applied to the local TOCs, the results are a little funny, but we could 
>skip that markup:
>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.
>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 
>Thoughts?  Should we still pursue the in-line markup?
>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 21:32:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:23:40 UTC