- From: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:34:07 +0200
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Simon Pieters wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:54:45 +0200, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>> Is there any chance we can keep the numbers
>>> in sync between the two copies?
>>
>> The easiest thing I can think of is: for each section that
>> gets filtered out, keep a stub that's just a heading
>> and some sort of note a la "for details, see the full spec".
>
> Maybe it's possible to first generate the section numbers and the ToC,
> then cut out the .impl parts (in the ToC too), then generate xrefs. This
> would get rid of broken links, too.
>
This is possible but it would be really confusing to users to have
non-sequential section numbers. Although it is worse for us, I think I
prefer the situation where the section numbers in the author view and
the full spec don't match. This makes pinpointing feedback harder (but
not too hard since a reporter can always give the section title and some
context), but makes the document read more consistently. Failing that I
think having stub sections that just say {section relevant only to
implementors} would be alright.
Received on Thursday, 27 August 2009 15:33:33 UTC