- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 15:31:07 -0600
- To: Thierry Michel <tmichel@w3.org>
- Cc: WebCGM WG <public-webcgm-wg@w3.org>
Thierry, It is possible to find Valid markup, based on <span>: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM-2nd.html#L5095 (I had to tag each line individually. Else they overlapped and obscured each other if I tagged 6 lines with one <span>.) -Lofton. At 03:10 PM 9/7/2008 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >Hi Thierry, > >I have been playing a little bit with the suggested in-line "new" styling... > >At 09:21 AM 8/20/2008 +0200, Thierry Michel wrote: >><style> >> .new { background-color: #f8e691; border: solid red; border-width: >> 2px;padding: 0.5em; } >></style> >>.... >><div class="new"> >>The setView() method is introduced on WebCGMPicture as a new feature in >>webCGM 2.1 ..... >></div> > >It makes some nice results! >http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-Config.html >http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM.html#geometric-transform >http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM.html#webcgmrect > >If applied to the local TOCs, the results are a little funny, but we could >skip that markup: >http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM.html > >But I think it might also have some more basic problems. For example, in >the DOM chapter, the "IDL definitions" are all within <pre> elements, and >you can't put markup into <pre> (at least you can't put <div> >there). Interestingly, both IE and FF render the styling. But it doesn't >validate as XHTML 1.0 Transitional. >http://www.w3.org/Graphics/WebCGM/drafts/highlight-test/WebCGM21-DOM.html#L5095 > >So we would have to tag only the detailed text (in the <dl> lists) >following the IDL, and leave the IDL unmarked. Similarly for the whole >ECMAScript Chapter. > >Therefore, the highlighting would not be complete, in the sense that it >leaves some substantive stuff unmarked. I wonder if this might concern >and confuse some reviewers? What do you think about the completeness issue? > >(There is also another, minor completeness issue, because we must choose >some threshold of too-low substantiveness and cut off applying the markup >below that level.) > >The idea does have the nice benefit of easily focusing people on new >stuff; and keeping them away from old stuff. > >If we can't make the in-line markup idea work, we still have: > >1.) Appendix B: "What's new in WebCGM 2.1", which is hyperlinked to the >major destination(s) of each topic. >2.) Appendix D: "Change Log", which is linked to smaller individual changes. >3.) A heads-up, pointing to Appendix B, in section 1.8 of the Introduction >chapter. > >Thoughts? Should we still pursue the in-line markup? > >-Lofton. > >P.S. Do you think Accessibility folks might have problems with the >markup? (It affects low-vision people by reducing the text contrast.) > > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 7 September 2008 21:32:03 UTC