- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:31:01 +0100
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>, Raph Levien <raph@google.com>
- CC: "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <1667174248.20140122003101@w3.org>
Hello, Attached is an empty (in terms of technical content) draft document for a WOFF 2.0 specification. It meets all the current publication rules (correct links to the patent policy, copyright, disclosures, etc) and is set up as first public working draft for the purposes of checking. You change it into an editors draft by commenting out the paragraphs that say "First Public Working Draft" and changing the stylesheet link from http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-WD to http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/W3C-ED You will also find these tools useful: HTML5 validity checker http://validator.w3.org/nu/ CSS validator (can be a little flaky; if it gives errors, ask me) http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ Link checker (including internal cross references) http://validator.w3.org/checklink Pubrules checker http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules?uimode=checker_full&uri= Its usual to put technical documents in a version control system, originally at W3C CVS (I can get you CVS accounts) although more recently people are using Github which you may prefer (I can make a Github group if you prefer that). Let me know. For now, for the purposes of checking, I put it in CVS here http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/WOFF2/ and in accordance with W3C conventions for a single-document spec it is called Overview.html Some things to bear in mind while editing: * all headings must have an id so they can be linked to directly. * Link to the references section by putting link text in square brackets: [WOFF 1.0] and adding a link like #ref-woff10 * be aware of the difference between normative and informative references (the former all need to be stable by the time the document gets to candidate recommendation) that is all that comes to mind right now. I added a references section so you can see how it works. In terms of editing, and since not everyone is comfortable with old-school direct editing of the html source, a tool I often use myyself is BlueGriffon. Its free (although there are additional, low-cost plugins to extend the functionality) and gives a visual representation of the document, like a wordprocessor. The guy who wrote it is the co-chair of the CSS working group and it uses the rendering engine of the Mozilla Firefox browser, so what you see when editing is what it will look like when published. http://bluegriffon.org/ Its cross-platform (downloads for Windows, Mac OS X or Linux). Let me know if you have questions or run into problems. -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Attachments
- text/html attachment: Overview.html
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2014 23:31:04 UTC