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

On 5/29/15 8:00 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
> Let me start off proposing "for the group" and if I'm outvoted I can 
> send personal feedback. :)

Thanks Joshua!

All - in the absence of any contrary opinions, I propose we submit 
Joshua's comments "on behalf of WebApps". However, we still have several 
weeks for the comment period so if you have any feedback, please send it 
by July 3

-Thanks, ArtB


> 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 
> <mailto: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
>         <mailto: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 Thursday, 4 June 2015 15:38:07 UTC