- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 18:26:10 -0400
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 14:01 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > > (4) The link to CSS WG is clutter at top right and should go. Karl's > > positioning made it clear that the document was produced by that WG, > > whereas this does not make that clear. > > Something should probably go up there. Karl's prototype had patent > info, but apparently that's not kosher. Thanks for replying. Maybe a link to the corresponding W3C Activity so people can find related specs? or to /TR ? > > (6) I don't think crossing out former editors is appropriate - move them > > to an appendix perhaps. The text needs to be understood even when CSS is > > not applied, or when the document is printed, or read out loud. Agree > > it's cute though :-) > > They're in a <del>, so that's definitely accessible. In that sense it is, yes, but the reason why they are deleted is not. > > (8) There should be a copyright statement there, e.g. > > Copyright | W3C _details..._ > > There is one, down in the bottom. This is the kind of boilerplate > that should stay out of the way and not be in the heading. Yeah, I'd like a link from the heading to it. For us it might be boilerplate but for readers it often isn't. > > > > (10) I like the limits on line length (I hope diagrams and tables can > > extend into the margins though!). > > Yeah, if necessary. We haven't found it necessary to exceed 800px in > any of the CSS specs that are already using that width. There's a couple of diagrams in XPath and XQuery that are probably wider than that, and I know there were some in XSL-FO :) > > > (13) a rule at the end of the document, perhaps with a "back to top", > > would make it clearer that the end of the document had been reached. > > Sounds like a good idea! > > > (14) although I like the typographical effect of the headers, I think in > > fact sections do need to be numbered, especially in longer documents. > > XML Query in this format would be awful without numbers. The numbers > > could be grey and in the left margin when there's room. > > The CSSWG makes the content sections numbered, but leaves the other > miscellany un-numbered. However, the style of the contents isn't > under consideration here, as you note later in your email. ^_^ Yeah, I wasn't sure at what level to stop looking :) Thanks for replying! > > ~TJ > -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2012 22:26:20 UTC