W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2015

RfC: Style Sheet for Technical Reports; deadline July 7

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 07:21:22 -0400
Message-ID: <55684BB2.2060207@gmail.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Fantasai is leading an effort to improve the style sheet used for new 
Technical Reports. She created a survey [1] that is supposed to reflect 
the entire group's feedback but she also welcomes individual feedback 
via the spec-prod list [2], using the 10 questions below as a guide.

If you have individual feedback, please send it directly to [2], using a 
Subject: prefix of "[restyle]" by July 7.

If you have feedback you propose be submitted on behalf of the group, 
please reply to this e-mail, by July 3 so I  have time to collate the 
feedback and submit it by the deadline.

In the absence of any feedback on behalf of the group, my reply to the 
survey will be that the existing style sheet meets the "We Can Live With 
It Test".

-Thanks, ArtB

[1] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/tr-design-survey-2015/
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/

On 5/27/15 2:02 PM, fantasai wrote:
> We are updating the style sheets for W3C technical reports.
>   This year's styling project is minor improvements and cleanup,
>   not major changes, so the look and feel will remain substantially 
> the same.
>   Also, please note that since the publication system work is ongoing,
>   no markup will be harmed in the development of the 2016 style sheet.
>   Given that, however, we hope to improve the quality and consistency
>   of styles used across W3C.
>   This survey must be completed by each working group on behalf of
>   the members of that working group (i.e not only on behalf of the 
> chairs).
>   1. What group are you answering on behalf of?
>   2. Paste in URLs to a representative sample (1-3 links) of your specs.
>      If styling differs substantially between /TR and your editor's 
> drafts,
>      please link to both versions.
>   3. What spec pre-processor(s) does your WG use?
>   4. Paste in URLs to any WG-specific style sheets you use.
>   5. What do you like about your current styles?
>   6. What do you dislike about your current styles?
>   7. Paste in URLs to any parts of your spec that are stylistically 
> complex
>      or tricky, and we should therefore be careful not to screw up.
>   8. The new styles will include rules for rendering data tables. These
>      will be opt-in by class name, and rely heavily on good markup
>      (use of THEAD, TBODY, COLGROUP, scope attributes, etc.).
>      See examples [1][2][3].
>      Paste in URLs to a sampling of any data tables you are using
>      so that we can try to accommodate those in the styling, if 
> practical.
>      [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css-text-3/#white-space-property
>      [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-align/#overview
>      [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-writing-modes/#logical-to-physical
>   9. The CSSWG has made a number of minor improvements to the existing 
> spec
>      styles, which we might just adopt wholesale. [4]
>      Please comment on what you like/dislike about these styles,
>      as demonstrated in the CSS3 Text Editor's Draft. [5]
>      [4] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/default.css
>      [5] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-3/
>   10. Is there anything else we should consider?
>   Individual members of the WG, W3C Staff, and others are also welcome
>   to send feedback to spec-prod@w3.org. Please be sure to use "[restyle]"
>   in the subject line.
> Based on the responses and the feedback and suggestions of any 
> individuals
> who want to help, I will create a new spec stylesheet for 2016 
> publications
> and (as Eric suggested) a short sample spec showing off these styles. 
> There
> should be plenty of time to comment on the specifics and to incorporate a
> few more rounds of feedback before the "last call" period at TPAC; 
> however
> I do need to understand the WGs' requirements up front, hence the survey.
> ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 29 May 2015 11:21:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:31 UTC