W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > October to December 2020

Re: [ReSpec] UNOFFICIAL DRAFT background

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 16:40:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDC_nLsDPmQ1F4ydgaUuyE8s-5=MhMKFN0mgCPP+QLWZTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Cc: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>, "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>
Yes, some recent changes with how w3c stylesheets handle the
backgrounds interacted badly with how Bikeshed was having to work
around the previous awkward w3c background handling. I'm just about to
commit the Bikeshed fixes that'll make things better. ^_^

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 6:02 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote:
>
> I believe that the watermark recently regressed (with this PR, I believe).
>
> It used to be confined to the head of the document (see here), but now covers the entire document (example), including the ToC and the document body, making it barely legible, particularly so in dark mode (see attachment).
>
> We should fix this.
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 2:40 PM Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Marcos.
>>
>> What is the "CG-DRAFT" status for then?
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:16 AM Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Martynas,
>> >
>> > To echo what Chris said, the watermark is by design: it's part of the "official" W3C style sheet for all Community Group drafts and not something ReSpec imposes.
>> >
>> > Nevertheless, it's the best the W3C community has come up with so far, but we are open to suggestions.
>> >
>> > As an alternative, you can use `specStatus: "unofficial"` in your document, that will only display the watermark across the top (keeping the body legible) and also remove the W3C logo. That makes it possible to share the document around with less potential of it being confused with having official standing at the W3C.
>> >
>> > Hope that helps!
>> >
>> > > On 13 Nov 2020, at 9:54 am, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > There has been continued feedback from some that the misperception of unofficial drafts - despite the Status section - is an ongoing issue.  cf https://github.com/w3c/tr-design/pull/177, https://github.com/WICG/admin/issues/132, https://github.com/WICG/admin/issues/64.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:25 PM Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com> wrote:
>> > > I get that. That is also what the "Status of This Document" explains
>> > > clearly. What I don't get is why the background image has to be
>> > > plastered all over the document making it unreadable?
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:23 PM Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Because anything that is a Community Group product is not an "official specification" (i.e., the product of a consensus-driven Working Group on the REC track).
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 2:14 PM Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> body { background-image: none !important; } did the trick.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Still don't understand what's the point of it.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 11:01 PM Martynas Jusevičius
>> > > >> <martynas@atomgraph.com> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Hi,
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Why does UNOFFICIAL DRAFT background appear on Community Group drafts
>> > > >> > (CG-DRAFT)?
>> > > >> > It makes the text illegible. How do I remove it?
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Examples:
>> > > >> > https://atomgraph.github.io/Linked-Data-Templates/
>> > > >> > https://atomgraph.github.io/RDF-POST/
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > I'm certain it wasn't there last year:
>> > > >> > http://web-old.archive.org/web/20191209025246/https://atomgraph.github.io/Linked-Data-Templates/
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Best,
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Martynas
>> > > >> > atomgraph.com
>> > > >>
>> >
>>
Received on Saturday, 14 November 2020 00:41:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 14 November 2020 00:41:27 UTC