W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Proposed W3C Spec Conventions

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:20:59 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0912021220m435f1e73l31142f8973509685@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
> Hi, Folks-
>
> (Forwarding and summarizing from Member-only space.)
> I'm not the first one to suggest this (apparently Karl tried to push
> this earlier this year), but I really think it's time we establish some
> standardized style conventions for W3C specs.
> I took a couple hours to pull together a proposal (attached) based on
> Karl's original along with feedback to that proposal, and conventions
> that I'm familiar with from the SVG and DOM3 Events specs; I'm not
> married to any of it, but any counter-proposals should probably stick
> with at least the level of granularity laid out here.
> Please see the attached, and send in counter-proposals or thoughts for
> consideration.
>
> I plan on using this (or whatever variant we all decide on) in the specs
> I'm editing (some SVG specs, DOM3 Events).  I encourage others to do the
> same, and report back what works, what doesn't work, what's missing, etc.
> (Oh, and I'd really like to see this working with Robin Berjon's ReSpec.js:
>  http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/ReSpec.js/documentation.html )
>
> Thanks!
> -Doug Schepers
> W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps \o/ WGs

One comment - in all the inline example near the end (Note, Warning,
etc) you use an <em> element to mark it up, but it does not seem as if
textual emphasis is warranted or desired.  If italics are desirable,
please switch to using an <i> element instead.  The use of <strong>
within those examples is acceptable, however.

The CSS WG does not have any further comments on your proposal.

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 20:21:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:28 GMT