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

Re: update Re: in-line "new" styling

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:27:12 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20080909171106.02eb2008@localhost>
To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>,WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Hi Thierry,

I have done a lot more work on
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM ,
and have more questions and comments.

First, a global question:  are we sure that this new21 markup will be 
acceptable to the people who are ruling on the WebCGM21 spec. acceptability 
for /TR/ (pubrules)?

Second, if "yes":  if we markup the whole document, should the SoTD say 
something?

Details...

a.) Okay.  That markup (below) with the IDL blocks works.  (Could apply it 
also to the ECMAScript chapter.)

b.) I ran into problems again, trying to use the <div> approach on a group 
of rows in a table:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM#styleprop-table

So I created a variant of the new21 style, called "new21-inline" and 
applied it to each <tr>.  It omits the margins and borders.  (It also works 
applying it to lists, as in the <ul> in the local TOC at the start of the 
chapter.  But we don't necessarily have to markup that TOC stuff).

Questions....

1.) threshold question:  here is a good threshold example.  Search on 
'grnode' in WebCGM21-DOM.html.  In a dozen places, you'll find 
single-sentence clarifications of the attribute/method behavior if the node 
type is 'grnode'.  This is not new functionality, but rather clarification 
of ambiguity that existed in WebCGM 2.0.  The changes are referenced in the 
Change Log.  Should they be highlighted?  It seems to me that we should be 
careful to separate new functionality from editorial. improvements (like 
clarifications) to 2.0 functionality.

Another such example is the new last paragraph to each of 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, 
clarifying 2.0 alpha transparency functionality:
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Concepts.html#webcgm_2_2_2

2.) deletions?  I can't think right now whether there are any functional 
deletions, but I think there might be.  It would probably be in the context 
of deprecation/obsoletion...

3.) Deprecation/obsoletion:  things that are deprecated in one version 
migrate to obsolete in the next.  Is that a new feature to be marked?
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/current-editor-21/WebCGM21-Conf.html#webcgm_conformance_deprObs

(Some of this might be easiest to discuss at the Thursday telecon.)

-Lofton.



At 10:05 AM 9/8/2008 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote:

>Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>Thierry,
>>It is possible to find Valid markup, based on <span>:
>>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM-2nd.html#L5095 
>>
>>(I had to tag each line individually.   Else they overlapped and obscured 
>>each other if I tagged 6 lines with one <span>.)
>
>
>tag each line individually with <span>, the rendering is not too elegant.
>
>I would suggest following code:
>
><td>
>  <pre>interface WebCGMAppStructure
>       ...
>  </pre>
>
>  <div class="new21">
>   <pre>WebCGMRect   getObjectExtent();
>        ...
>   </pre>
>  </div>
></td>
>
>see
>http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM-3nd.html#L5095
>
>which does validate.
>
>
>TM.
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 00:28:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 10 September 2008 00:28:06 GMT