W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: W3C Spec Restyle Phase II

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 14:01:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDkKPK9OUrLhvoBFC0Qi31y-4i+Y4r13SnuYvx+GRZE-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: liam@w3.org
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> (4) The link to CSS WG is clutter at top right and should go. Karl's
> positioning made it clear that the document was produced by that WG,
> whereas this does not make that clear.

Something should probably go up there.  Karl's prototype had patent
info, but apparently that's not kosher.

> (6) I don't think crossing out former editors is appropriate - move them
> to an appendix perhaps. The text needs to be understood even when CSS is
> not applied, or when the document is printed, or read out loud. Agree
> it's cute though :-)

They're in a <del>, so that's definitely accessible.

> (8) There should be a copyright statement there, e.g.
> Copyright | W3C _details..._

There is one, down in the bottom.  This is the kind of boilerplate
that should stay out of the way and not be in the heading.

> (10) I like the limits on line length (I hope diagrams and tables can
> extend into the margins though!).

Yeah, if necessary.  We haven't found it necessary to exceed 800px in
any of the CSS specs that are already using that width.

> (13) a rule at the end of the document, perhaps with a "back to top",
> would make it clearer that the end of the document had been reached.

Sounds like a good idea!

> (14) although I like the typographical effect of the headers, I think in
> fact sections do need to be numbered, especially in longer documents.
> XML Query in this format would be awful without numbers. The numbers
> could be grey and in the left margin when there's room.

The CSSWG makes the content sections numbered, but leaves the other
miscellany un-numbered.  However, the style of the contents isn't
under consideration here, as you note later in your email. ^_^

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 21:02:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:42:19 UTC