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

Re: Proposed W3C Spec Conventions

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:00:42 -0500
Message-ID: <4B194E4A.6040801@w3.org>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: spec-prod@w3.org
Hi, David-

+spec-prod

L. David Baron wrote (on 12/2/09 5:02 PM):
>
> One thing I'm not a big fan of in this proposal is the color
> conventions used for "Issue" and "Proposal" text, which swap in a
> different foreground color.  I somewhat prefer the styles I've used
> a few times, e.g., in http://dbaron.org/css/intrinsic/#intrinsic ,
> which are clearly distinct, but which I find not quite as jarring.

Fair enough.  It doesn't bother me, but different people have different 
tastes.  I imagine that if we get a real designer to lend a hand, we 
will end up with better visual representations for everything than we 
have right now.


> One other note is that I find the styles here:
>    # The defining instance of a term is marked up like this: term.
>    # Uses of that term are marked up like this.
> a bit odd, both because:
>   (1) it seems odd to switch to a monospace font for something that's
>       not code, and
>   (2) defining instances of terms are traditionally styled in
>       italics, I think.
> I would suggest styling the defining instance in italics and the
> uses as the default link styles.

Seems reasonable.  Robin Berjon suggested different link underline 
colors for internal vs. external links, and I like that idea, too... so, 
maybe we could compromise somewhere in the middle?

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 18:00:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 10 March 2012 06:19:16 GMT