Re: in-line "new" styling

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 


Yes looks nice.
> 
> 
> 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

I would remove styling from the TOC.
> 
> 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 
>

Right can't have <div> into <pre>
> 
> 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?

We MUST have a valid document. that is a requirement for publication.
We should also have the IDL marked as it is new


> 
> (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?

I like the styling; it makes it really easy to focus on new stuff.

I will look into the 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.)

No, that is not an issue. With CSS one can override the style sheet with 
its own css style sheet, and have it accessible to its own criteria.

> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 8 September 2008 08:01:24 UTC