W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: Updating our /TR stylesheets

From: Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:24:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMK=o4dFs=opL2XskuVREfMUE3zyD+ceaZ4YScjvMqDrQys+Dw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Cc: spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>
Thanks for providing some background, Philippe. Wasn't aware of the context.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote:

> On 04/16/2015 09:43 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:
>> Separation between style and content--which incidentally is how I heard
>> about Web standards even before I had published (or should I say authored?)
>> my first Web page--should let us change styles without affecting any of the
>> legal requirements we have or what am I missing? Frankly, if, as a
>> standards boy, we write technology for separation of content and style,
>> promote it as a best practice, then not apply it to the documents we
>> publish, I find we just loose credibility.
> You're assuming all authors of previous documents wouldn't mind to have
> the style of their documents changed. Past experiences showed that it's not
> the case. This is not just technical or a resource challenge here.

I actually wasn't aware there were dramatically different spec styles and
assumed that was more of a bug than a feature. Frankly, this is not how
publishing is generally done, and I fail to understand the benefits of this

If there are rules in place that make it impossible to change the style of
>> already published documents (which seems bizarre, I've never heard someone
>> claiming a Comic Sans version of the constitution diverges from the
>> original text), can we just freeze pre 2015 specs, then change those rules
>> and shift to a continuously deployed solution for new specs?
> There are no such rules. We change the style in the past and had to revert
> it in fact.
> I'm proposing that we put such rule on ourselves to simplify the way
> forward for the time being. The other path of trying to change past
> documents failed so far for various reasons. To me, the automatic
> publication system or our switch to https are more  important than changing
> the style of the first edition of XML 1.0 or the style of SOAP 1.2.

Agreed. I assumed a common HTML structure along with a common stylesheet
which could have been changed easily.

 I mean, I applaud trying to find creative solutions to this problem that
>> has been going on for years, but this feels about the same as
>> administration's website that aren't available outside of office hours
>> (yes, this exists).
> I would note that it doesn't prevent from solving the problem of old
> documents in the future. It's just something where I don't think we should
> spend the time on for the moment. I'd prefer the energy to go into the
> modern tools proposed by Robin.

Oh agreed. Wasn't aware it would be time consuming to do so I assumed that
it would be simpler.

So my suggestion given this context is to go with pre 2015 style and
continuous deployment for new specs.

Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 15:25:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:20 UTC