Re: Feedback sought on reorganizing the list of W3C Technical Reports

Le 11/01/2021 à 13:42, Léonie Watson a écrit :
> I think labelling and categorisation is critical, and I like the idea of
> families as a different way to organise things.
> 
> The ability to filter will be important. Off the top of my head the ways
> I'd want to be able to filter include:
> 
> * Date
> * Family
> * State (in progress, complete, obsolete etc.)
> * Rec state (FPWD, CR etc.)
>
> 
> Possible other filters:
> 
> * Responsible WG
> 
> The ability to sort data is also likely to be helpful:
> 
> * By date
> * By name (A to Z, Z to A)

Thanks - Denis, can you indicate which of these filter / sorting are
included in the current proposal from Studio24 for /TR?

> The prototype looks to have good accessibility (headings, lists,
> unique/informative link text etc.).
> 
> One challenge will be the use of acronyms. Convention is to expand the
> acronym the first time it's used in a document with the acronym in
> parenthesis after it, but this is going to be difficult given that
> filtering will mean the first instance of an acronym like "CR" may
> change.
Thanks for raising this - does this mean that adding an <abbr title> on
the first usage of the acronym would not be sufficient? (re filtering,
the JS used for filtering could take care of adding either the abbr or
the parenthesis as needed).

Were your concerns for acronyms "only" for the Rec track stages, or also
for family names? (if the latter, I think we could adopt the policy of
always expanding acronyms in family names)

> The best idea I can come up with is to create a glossary and to
> link to it from somewhere reasonably easy to find on the /TR page (a W3C
> glossary might be a good thing to "do once, link to often" from
> elsewhere too come to think of it).

Thanks!

Dom

Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2021 17:12:57 UTC