W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: CSS Mockup for QA Guidelines

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:30:43 -0400
Message-Id: <a05200f02bb1f9c06d9d5@[]>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 10:35 -0600 2003-06-24, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>At 04:48 PM 6/23/03 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:

I have modified a little bit the stylesheet and added the example of 
Markup to make it even easier to use.

>Great!  The markup is easy to read.  A couple of small questions:
>1.)  You based your mock-up markup on the LC OpsGL [1], and have a 
>"Note" class.
>That particular "Note" in OpsGL has become "Related checkpoints" in 
>CP3.2 in the current editor's draft [2].  In fact, OpsGL now has 10 
>CPs with "Related checkpoints", as a result of adding clarifications 
>requested during Last Call.

It's not a problem. I have explained it the Mockup document if you 
want to create a new class with a new category. The Style is not 
dependant on the name of the class but on the structure level except 
for TA which has a different backgroung color.

So use the class you need, I wanted to be easy for the editors :)

>2.) For the next question, let me illustrate with a source example 
>from the mockup:


>added by an XSLT transformation step before publication.  So in 
>theory, that transformation could key on the markup, 
>"class='Rationale'", to add the "<h6>Rationale<h6>" during the 
>transformation.  I.e., editors would only need the markup, and 
>wouldn't have to put the <h6>Rationale<h6> into the Master text.

yes it's a good idea. Minimize the effort of Editors and if we do it 
really simple we will be able to share it with other people outside 

>Does anyone have any opinions, one way or the other, about the best 
>way?  I.e., editors add the markup, versus add it to the XSLT 

XSLT I would vote. it leads to a more consistent way of writing your 
code and so less possible mistake.
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 18:31:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:31 UTC