- From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:46:47 +0100
- To: spec-prod@w3.org
On 21/06/2013 15:17, Richard Ishida wrote: > Btw, changing the link allowed me to dismiss the error msgs. (It did, > however, break some other bits of my document.) In my (very old, reactivated) document, I had lots of 'mustard', as we called it - requirements with a yellow background (this is a second part of the Character Model). I was initially pleasantly surprised to note that the yellow background appeared automatically behind divs with class=req. When i changed to the latest version of respec, however, the source code went from: <div class="req"> <p>[S][I] Specifications and implementations <em title="must not" class="rfc2119">must not</em> assume that content is in any particular normalization form. </p> </div> to: <div class="req"><a href="#undefined">Req. 13</a>: <p>[S][I] Specifications and implementations <em title="MUST NOT" class="rfc2119">MUST NOT</em> assume that content is in any particular normalization form. </p> </div> ie. adding an ugly and unwanted numbered link, that doesn't actually link anywhere. I assumed that I could easily enough make it go away by adding a line of css to prevent display of that a element, but there are issues: (1) since there is no class name on the a element, i'd have to hope that it always follows immediately after class="req"> in order to select it. (Probably not an issue, but I'm not 100% sure.) (2) my style rule wouldn't remove the ":" - this is a bigger problem, and I think a design flaw. (3) anyway, i don't necessarily want that junk hanging around in the source code. So I'm assuming that I now have to either change all my req class names to something else and add my own styling, or overwrite the javascript that adds the 'junk' - I don't really have time or the inclination for that - much less the WG folks who actually produced this version of the doc. What would really help, actually, is a table that gives a list of reserved classNames, and indicates what they do. I'd have thought that that wouldn't take too long to write, but would yield significant, immediate benefits for users. (It ought to be a requirement to keep that up to date if you tinker with the respec code.) RI -- Richard Ishida, W3C http://rishida.net/
Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 14:47:15 UTC