W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: Proposed W3C Spec Conventions

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:33:59 +0100
Message-ID: <4B966A67.7010201@opera.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Spec Prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 18/02/10 11:51, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2010, at 20:07 , Doug Schepers wrote:
>> Now that we have people talking about it, let's decide what changes would need to be made, to either the spec-conventions doc, to ReSpec, or to CSS pre-processor / Anolis.
>
> FWIW ReSpec uses conventions very similar to those of CSS PP and Anolis at least for<dfn>  and its title, and I pilfered the ID generator from Anolis for linking to sections so it should be relatively straightforward. There are (I think) differences for IDs of interface elements but we can work that out. The biggest difference is that autogenerated links to<dfn>  use<a>  without @href in ReSpec and<span>  in Anolis (the former is more correct semantically, but really it's mostly because it's shorter to type :).

Having nicer, more useful, id generation for interfaces was something I 
was thinking about a month or two ago, and I was somewhat tempted to 
implement such a thing for Anolis 2, though I haven't done so yet.

Using a for terms is probably nicer, but is backwards incompatible, and 
adding a whole load more elements to have to check the contents of is 
just going to slow stuff down even further (which in the HTML 5 case is 
already a non-trivial cost). There again, I was tempted to make one or 
two backwards incompatible changes in Anolis 2 anyway… Hixie, thoughts? 
I guess if you can live with it others can…

-- 
Geoffrey Sneddon — Opera Software
<http://gsnedders.com/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 15:34:46 GMT

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