W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > January to March 1999

Style changes to WD-xhtml-modularization-19990331

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 18:44:11 -0500
Message-ID: <3702B34B.7E658A8C@w3.org>
To: shane@themacs.com
CC: www-html-editor@w3.org
Hi Shane,

Dave Raggett telephoned me (about to board a plane) and
asked me to take a look at the modularization draft [1] and
to request a change (and regeneration of postscript, pdf, etc.).
The email address for comments about the draft
should be www-html-editor@w3.org. Also, if you want people
to cc another address (related to a database), that might
be added after www-html-editor@w3.org (although in my opinion
this will be confusing and there should only be one address).

While looking at [1], I also noticed the following that
will need to be fixed:

a) The document needs to be restructed according to
   the (pretty new) W3C TR page styles (described in [2]).
   In particular, this means:

      - The title is not centered.

      - No document id in the upper right hand corner. The
        "this version" URI is the document identifier.

      - The copyright statement should appear after the
        names of the editors (and if marked up with the
        right class, will be smaller. Please also make sure that
        the copyright statement is the correct one (see the
        exact markup in [2]).

   I recommend that you use a template (see [3] and select
   "tech-report.html") to create the cover page, then adjust
   it to meet your needs. The LINK to the TR page styles
   should be repeated in all of the pages making up the document.

b) The version URLs must be the full URLs:
     This version:
      Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization

    Also, there should not be a diff-marked version since the diffs 
    are with respect to a Working Group-only draft.
    Note that the URLs to the document no longer include the prefix
    for working draft. This was a recent Team decision to remove this
    information from the URL.

c) I think the section entitled "Comments" should just be part of the 
   status section.

d) I recommend that the alternative formats (pdf, ps, etc.) not have
   the full URLs but simply the format type as link text. (This is new
   and undocumented, but I am going to promote this practice). Thus:
      <DT>This version: 
      <DD>(<a href="....">plan text</a>, <a href="....">postscript</a>,
e) Please be sure to validate the HTML and CSS of the document, as well
   as ensuring there are no broken links!!

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to call,

[2] http://www.w3.org/Guide/Reports
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/Templates,new

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) 
Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814 
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 1999 18:46:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:21 UTC