W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: no longer treating explicit undefined as a missing, optional argument

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:24:31 +1100
Message-ID: <4F04EDBF.8030402@mcc.id.au>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
Anne van Kesteren:
> I was hoping to avoid newlines, but I guess I can make an exception for
> this one method in the platform. It is quite long, after all. Given the
> current markup we have for <pre class=idl>, do you have suggestions for
> styles? I'm willing to try them out to see if they are better.

I would just try de-emphasising the extended attributes, and perhaps 
emphasising the identifiers of attributes, operations, etc.

I'm by no means a designer, but attached is something that looks OK to 
me.  You might find it a bit too colourful and source code editor like. 
  I missed that you said "given the current markup" before I did this, 
so adapting styles like this might not be so easy without modifying your 
markup.  It should be easy to play with the styles if you want to.  I 
also introduced some more newlines where I thought it helped make it 
more readable.

Received on Thursday, 5 January 2012 00:27:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:05 UTC