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

Re: W3C Spec Restyle Phase II

From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 18:26:10 -0400
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1341354370.19488.127.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 14:01 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for replying. Maybe a link to the corresponding W3C Activity so
people can find related specs? or to /TR ?

> > (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.

In that sense it is, yes, but the reason why they are deleted is not.


> > (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.

Yeah, I'd like a link from the heading to it. For us it might be
boilerplate but for readers it often isn't.
> 
> 
> > (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.

There's a couple of diagrams in XPath and XQuery that are probably wider
than that, and I know there were some in XSL-FO :)

> 
> > (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. ^_^

Yeah, I wasn't sure at what level to stop looking :)

Thanks for replying!
> 
> ~TJ
> 

-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 22:26:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2012 22:26:21 GMT