W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > October 2009

Reformatting of SVG specs

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:56:31 +1100
To: site-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20091014005631.GB24867@wok.mcc.id.au>
Hello site-comments.

First, congratulations on launching the new W3C site!  I think it looks
a lot better than when we first got a chance to see the preview.  Maybe
it’s all the shadows and gradients. :-)

I believe the missing text on /standards/webdesign/graphics has already
been pointed out.  Below are some other comments on some SVG-related
pages:

In my browser (Firefox on Linux) the box on /standards/techs/svg that
has “( ) Show details (o) Hide details” wraps the second “details” on to
a second line.  My guess is that it should be all on one line.

When viewing a spec (like /TR/2009/REC-SVGTiny12-20090303/) in print
view, you can see the text “W3C” before the logo.  That section’s white
background also obscures the “W3C Recommendation” image down the side.

Some specific strange formatting in /TR/2009/REC-SVGTiny12-20090303/:

* In the “Authors” section, the text “Authors:” and the <ul> below
  don’t need to be indented.

* The list of authors is duplicated in the “Editors, Authors” section.

* Not sure it’s useful to list the editors both at the top and at the
  bottom of that front page.  (Although the list at the bottom does
  include links and e-mail addresses which aren’t at the top.  Is that
  a design decision to not have links in the top section?)

* The table of contents looks better without the bullets, as in the
  original.

In individual chapters, like /TR/2009/REC-SVGTiny12-20090303/intro.html,
the reference to the spec-specific style sheet (style/svg-style.css) is
missing, so much of the chapter looks strange, such as:

* the header and footer (the text “SVG Tiny 1.2 – 20081222 Top Contents
  Next Elements Attributes” at the top and bottom of the page)

* <ul>s have lost their bullets, such as the one in section 1.3

* <code>s have a large amount of whitespace before and after their
  contents, which looks strange (e.g. the SVG namespace just after the
  <ul> in section 1.3)

* example blocks have lost their styling altogether (compare the
  examples in 1.3 to those in
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-SVGTiny12-20081222/intro.html#defining)

and various other styling problems.  Many of those would be fixed by
putting the <link> to style/svg-style.css back in.

Spaces have been introduced in some places, making links look odd.  Look
for example at the link “animation elements” in section 1.1; the link
extends to the space just after the text.  You can see in the source
that child whitespace added to the <a> element has caused this.
(Incidentally, in the footer of every page similar extra whitespace
makes the MIT and ERCIM links have too much space.)

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 00:57:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 16:21:32 GMT