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

Re: New W3C Web Site Launched

From: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:51:44 -0500
Message-ID: <da131fde0910141751t7b07743ah5f99c5891c667e43@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, site-comments@w3.org
Cc: chairs@w3.org, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
In case it isn't immediately obvious, the src of that <img> should be:

src="images/coords/InitialCoords.png"

from what I can tell (at least that's what my offline copy has).
Thank god I saved this specification locally long ago.

Regards,
Jeff

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com> wrote:
> <img alt="Example InitialCoords - SVG's initial coordinate system"
> src="//afs/w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/2003/REC-SVG11-20030114images/coords/InitialCoords.png"
> width="300" height="100"/>
>
> Sorry to be blunt, but frankly I'm just amazed that this "live
> re-styling" was allowed and didn't require some sort of approval by
> the chairs.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm going to echo Robin's "surprise" here.  I did not expect to have
>> problems with specs because the W3C website design changed.  Websites
>> are different than technical specifications.  One is fluid, the other
>> is not expected to be, especially after the specification has been
>> released.  I will also echo Robin that specification re-styling should
>> have been done in a sandbox somewhere, then reviewed with each WG,
>> then released.
>>
>> On the one hand, thank you for restoring http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/
>>
>> On the other hand, http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/coords.html (for
>> instance) is missing all of its images.  This is just the first thing
>> I noticed.
>>
>> I hope the web team can "power through" all these changes as quickly
>> as possible so that W3C doesn't lose credibility.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jeff
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Ian,
>>>
>>> On Oct 14, 2009, at 18:28 , Ian Jacobs wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We had a beta test period for some time. Going live was intended to get
>>>> more feedback (which is happening).
>>>> We will fix things as we go. If the new templates prove unfixable, we'll
>>>> remove them.
>>>
>>> I do not question that that approach is right for the general site;
>>> requirements for standards are different though. Cool standards don't change
>>> under your feet. I strongly urge the Team to consider things that live under
>>> /TR/ as being a completely different use case and a largely different crowd
>>> than the rest of the W3C website.
>>>
>>> And if you do insist on running live tests inside TR, why run them on the
>>> stable, important documents and not on unstable and less important ones?
>>> Presumably, their formatting requirements are the same, while the impact of
>>> issues is lesser.
>>>
>>>> We've kept the previous documents available at their original URIs. We
>>>> have new URIs for the reformatted specs. So people who wish to refer to the
>>>> dated spec can continue to do so. The "latest version" URI takes you to the
>>>> reformatted versions.
>>>
>>> At the very least would you consider switching that around so that the
>>> latest version would point to the latest version that actually reached
>>> consensus in the WG in charge of publishing them and was endorsed by the
>>> Membership? A lot of resources out there point to the latest version instead
>>> of the dated one (as does Google in most cases).
>>>
>>>> Instead, I ask your patience while we fix bugs (which one should expect
>>>> during a significant upgrade such as this one). If you need the stable
>>>> previous specs in the meantime, those URIs still work.
>>>
>>> I am more than happy to be patient and to help out with the creation of new
>>> templates. I merely ask that we don't play Russian roulette with documents
>>> that worked and that are widely referenced. I am somewhat surprised (to put
>>> it nicely) that the same organisation that deliberately inflicts dated URIs
>>> upon the world would toy with the product of consensus so carelessly.
>>>
>>>> On the question of "google on every page" we discussed this issue quite a
>>>> bit. We certainly don't have the resources to write our own search engine.
>>>> And offering N search options to users (in a gesture to be more neutral) is
>>>> not really a service to users. We talked to google about dropping their logo
>>>> requirement and they let us know that that would not be possible.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding twitter and identi.ca, we are already using 2 rather than one.
>>>> If we end up setting up our own microblog service at W3C, then we might
>>>> promote it instead. But all of that would require more resources than we
>>>> have currently allocated.
>>>
>>> Again, the general website and the specifications are different things. I'm
>>> perfectly happy with those things in the general site. I would be happy with
>>> ads on the general site — that'd make the W3C some useful money.
>>>
>>> The specifications, on the other hand, are authority documents. I have
>>> absolutely nothing against Google, but W3C specifications aren't Google
>>> specifications. There is enough confusion in the community already about who
>>> drives what.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I prefer to keep going and work out the bugs. The advantages of the new
>>>> templates for TRs include:
>>>>
>>>> * integrated into the rest of site
>>>
>>> I think that's a bug. Specifications aren't pages just like other pages in
>>> the site. We shouldn't be trying to give the impression that they sit on the
>>> same level, which is what the current layout does.
>>>
>>>> * status section has been moved down so people can begin reading more
>>>> quickly
>>>
>>> I'm not convinced that that's a good change either — see other thread in
>>> chairs@.
>>>
>>>> There are some challenges in ensuring we don't break formatting; we will
>>>> continue to investigate and fix those.
>>>> If this experiment does not bear fruit, we will roll back.
>>>
>>> Is there at least a date at which we plan to make a call as to whether the
>>> experiment was a failure or not? Is there a process of any sort telling us
>>> who's making the call and who we can appeal to? Is there any plan to engage
>>> and involve the people who actually write the specifications? The people
>>> writing specification production tools?
>>>
>>>> But given the largely positive feedback we've received, I'd like to keep
>>>> plugging ahead for a short while.
>>>
>>> Positive feedback on the site in general should be taken separately from
>>> feedback on the specs, I hope.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Robin Berjon
>>>  robineko — setting new standards
>>>  http://robineko.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 15 October 2009 00:52:19 GMT

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