- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:33:21 -0500
- To: Jon Phipps <jphipps@madcreek.com>, Diego Berrueta <diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org>
- Cc: <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, Ed Summers <ehs@POBOX.COM>
At 05:48 PM 1/21/2008 -0500, Jon Phipps wrote: >... a revised editors' draft of the Best Practice Recipes is now available at: ><http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/draft-20080121>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/draft-20080121 > >To the extent that it might be helpful to reviewers, there's an html diff here: ><http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/draft->http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/draft-20080121_diff Very nice, Jon and Diego. This draft looks to me fine to publish. (nice diff too, though it appears to be truncated by a paragraph or two. What tool produced it?) >One thing we didn't do in this version was address this suggestion: >"When I printed a hardcopy of the document, the longer lines in >each of the blocks of directives were truncated. I suggest using >'\' continuation lines to break the longer RewriteCond directives >between the test and the pattern. Some of the comment lines >are similarly truncated and should be wrapped." > >While I absolutely agree, I tried it on a few of the recipes and felt that it reduced the readability on screen. I hope that it's ok with you if we leave it long for this version. certainly fine to proceed with this draft. >We also haven't yet changed the example namespace to w3.org for this version. That's fine too, as long as Alistair's server remains on the Web. Let's assign an action to copy and test the examples on w3.org before the next WD. >Other than these suggestions, we believe that we have incorporated all of the reviewers' suggestions and fixes into the current draft. I'm happy.
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 15:33:53 UTC