Re: RfC: Style Sheet for Technical Reports; deadline July 7

Let me start off proposing "for the group" and if I'm outvoted I can send
personal feedback. :)

Standard stylesheet: http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/
My tweaked styles: https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/
CSS changes are visible at:
https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB/blob/gh-pages/index.html#L79

Differences:

* Impose a maximum body width and center to improve readability on wide
windows +
* Increase body line spacing to ~1.45 to improve readability of dense text +
* Size of inline <code> text should match body text size +
* Reduce vertical space taken up by note/Issue blocks +
* Size of block code samples should be at least slightly closer to body size
* Introduce standard "switch" <dl> style

These were (of course!) inspired by some of the newer, more readable (IMHO)
specs styles floating about.

The items marked with + above seem to already be addressed Fantasai's
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-3/ (i.e. I'm borrowing from the right
people...)

Other notes:

* Current IDL blocks are pretty garish; I think they could use a little
*less* syntax highlighting.
* In dense algorithmic steps, the underlines on linked terms become fairly
cluttered since nearly every word is a reference. I suppose the
alternatives are color (?), style (italics is used for variables), or
weight (used for definitions). Ideas?



On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
>