W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Review of the Reformatted Recommendations (was Re: New W3C Web Site Launched)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:13:57 -0400
To: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
Cc: chairs@w3.org, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, spec-prod@w3.org, W3C Members <w3c-ac-members@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFADE63DE5.F632C74B-ON85257650.005309DF-85257650.00533D49@lotus.com>
Robin Berjon writes:

> in the absence of a list specifically tailored for editors, I'd like 
> to suggest that we can move this discussion to spec-prod@w3.org

I have not strong feeling either way, since the key points have been here 
in any case.  Please do keep in mind that spec-prod has a very different 
readership than, e.g. chairs.  I can see why moving it off ac-members 
makes sense, and indeed I don't believe I have posting permissions to that 
one (so, this note probably won't get there).  Maybe we should, ahem, 
cross post to chairs and spec-prod?  Usually, I don't like cross posting, 
but I suspect that both communities are interested in this one.


Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
Sent by: chairs-request@w3.org
10/15/2009 10:32 AM
        To:     Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, 
        cc:     chairs@w3.org, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, W3C Members 
<w3c-ac-members@w3.org>, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Review of the Reformatted Recommendations (was Re: 
New W3C Web Site Launched)

Hi all,

in the absence of a list specifically tailored for editors, I'd like 
to suggest that we can move this discussion to spec-prod@w3.org which 
seems to be the closest logical location.

All but a few of the W3C Recommendations listed at:


have been reformatted to match the look of the new site. In many cases 
this has broken them with various degrees of severity (in some cases 
rendering them largely unusable). Surely, users can go to the 
previously published version if they happen to need a functional 
document, but it's not something that they're likely to guess (unless 
they read the small note at the bottom of all those documents).

I don't think that I'm being particularly grouchy or demanding if I 
state that running live breaking experiments on documents that are 
expected to be stable and authoritative at their canonical URLs is a 
rather bad situation, that we should work together to address as 
quickly as possible.

I have already heard several people who had reviewed beta.w3.org being 
surprised at the changes made to the Recommendations. It seems rather 
clear to me that this part of the new site has not received anywhere 
near the amount of validation that it ought to have.

So in the spirit of reaching consensus that we are all familiar with, 
and in order to help the Team out as it pushes through this huge 
redesign effort that is in pretty much every other one of its aspects 
absolutely fantastic, to get all the editors past and present who are 
willing to help to discuss ways of addressing the current breakage 
swiftly. I would think that anyone would naturally be welcome to help, 
but I single out editors as they are after all those whose blood and 
tears and paper cuts from a thousand man-hours of last comments build 
these documents and donate them to W3C. They know the kinks and the 
warts, and they've generally had no other option but to listen to 
their users at great length.

Amongst the topics that I would like to see resolved as part of this 
discussion are:

   - Should this experimentation be performed on live Recommendations 
at their canonical URLs?
   - Should old documents be updated at all? If yes, should the WGs in 
charge handle them?
   - Do TRs need to have the site navigation included or are they 
   - Is it okay to have the logos of commercial companies on TRs?
   - Should the SotD and paraphernalia be pushed to the end?

And of course any other concern that editors may bring up. Personally, 
I agree that the idea behind most of the changes has merit, but I 
believe that this is being rushed out unbaked, and that the quality of 
our production is taking a hit because of it.


Robin Berjon
   robineko — hired gun, higher standards

Received on Thursday, 15 October 2009 15:12:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:15 GMT