- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:49:46 +0200
- To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
- CC: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
James Graham wrote: > 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. I'd rather we kept the section numbers the same, and we had sections with something like: "This section is intentionally left blank, as it consists solely of implementation information." -- Geoffrey Sneddon — Opera Software <http://gsnedders.com/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Friday, 28 August 2009 08:50:33 UTC