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

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

From: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:27:23 +0200
Message-ID: <48C768CB.6080607@w3.org>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
CC: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>

Lofton Henderson wrote:
> 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)?

Of course it is 100% sure it is acceptable. We can use are own styling. 
And you can check the doc does pass the pubrules checker.

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

As you like.
> 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).

OK fine.
> 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.

I agree it is not a new features.Does not need styling.
> 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 

same as previous case.
> 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...

probably not a new feature ;-)
> 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.)

will do.

Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 06:28:15 UTC

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