W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > January 2014

Getting started with WOFF 2.0: a template draft

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:31:01 +0100
Message-ID: <1667174248.20140122003101@w3.org>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>, Raph Levien <raph@google.com>
CC: "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Hello,

Attached is an empty (in terms of technical content) draft document
for a WOFF 2.0 specification. It meets all the current publication
rules (correct links to the patent policy, copyright, disclosures,
etc) and is set up as  first public working draft for the purposes of
checking.

You change it into an editors draft by commenting out the paragraphs
that say "First Public Working Draft" and changing the stylesheet link
from
  http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-WD
to
 http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-ED

You will also find these tools useful:

HTML5 validity checker
  http://validator.w3.org/nu/

CSS validator (can be a little flaky; if it gives errors, ask me)
  http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

Link checker (including internal cross references)
  http://validator.w3.org/checklink

Pubrules checker
  http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=checker_full&uri=


Its usual to put technical documents in a version control system,
originally at W3C CVS (I can get you CVS accounts) although more
recently people are using Github which you may prefer (I can make a
Github group if you prefer that). Let me know.

For now, for the purposes of checking, I put it in CVS here
http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/WOFF2/
and in accordance with W3C conventions for a single-document spec it
is called Overview.html

Some things to bear in mind while editing:

* all headings must have an
id so they can be linked to directly.

* Link to the references section by putting link text in square
brackets: [WOFF 1.0] and adding a link like #ref-woff10

* be aware of the difference between normative and informative
references (the former all need to be stable by the time the document
gets to candidate recommendation)

that is all that comes to mind right now. I added a references section
so you can see how it works.

In terms of editing, and since not everyone is comfortable with
old-school direct editing of the html source, a tool I often use
myyself is BlueGriffon. Its free (although there are additional,
low-cost plugins to extend the functionality) and gives a visual
representation of the document, like a wordprocessor. The guy who
wrote it is the co-chair of the CSS working group and it uses the
rendering engine of the Mozilla Firefox browser, so what you see when
editing is what it will look like when published.

http://bluegriffon.org/

Its cross-platform (downloads for Windows, Mac OS X or Linux).

Let me know if you have questions or run into problems.


-- 
Best regards,
 Chris                          mailto:chris@w3.org


Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2014 23:31:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 21 January 2014 23:31:05 UTC