W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

[closed] Re: Comments for WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:24:54 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030304152410.027aa810@localhost>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Marking as closed in the subject line for clarity.  OK Dave?

Brian

At 11:10 04/03/2003 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote:

> >>>Susan Lesch said:
> >
> > Here are minor editorial comments for your "RDF/XML Syntax
> > Specification (Revised)" Last Call Working Draft [1] to use or not, as
> > you see fit.
>
>Thank you.  I will take these editorial comments, not recording as
>a last call issue on the document.
>
>I've one thing that is more feedback to W3C doc production than
>related to your comments, but it reminded me.  You said:
>
><snip/>
> > The grammar CSS is nicely done.
>
>I did spend some time looking around the CSS styles in various docs
>(latest TRs at the time and the draft manual of style) to see what to
>do where examples were needed - large blocks of (possibly monospace
>formatted) examples outdented with captions, extra information.
>
>I eventually decided to use some CSS styles taken from XML Schemas,
>slightly modified.  My concern was that the colours combinations I
>used were accessible enough - with high-enough contrast, suitable for
>printing, so tha they were as usable as possible.  For example the
>use of red=bad, green=good is probably not a good idea for people
>with red/green sight problems, but might be with a key and use of
><u>?
>
>The figures 1 & 2 in [1] use black-on-red and black-on-green which
>again might be a bad combination?
>
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/
>
>Maybe I worry too much!
>
>Dave
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 10:24:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT