- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:00:42 -0500
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- CC: spec-prod@w3.org
Hi, David- +spec-prod L. David Baron wrote (on 12/2/09 5:02 PM): > > One thing I'm not a big fan of in this proposal is the color > conventions used for "Issue" and "Proposal" text, which swap in a > different foreground color. I somewhat prefer the styles I've used > a few times, e.g., in http://dbaron.org/css/intrinsic/#intrinsic , > which are clearly distinct, but which I find not quite as jarring. Fair enough. It doesn't bother me, but different people have different tastes. I imagine that if we get a real designer to lend a hand, we will end up with better visual representations for everything than we have right now. > One other note is that I find the styles here: > # The defining instance of a term is marked up like this: term. > # Uses of that term are marked up like this. > a bit odd, both because: > (1) it seems odd to switch to a monospace font for something that's > not code, and > (2) defining instances of terms are traditionally styled in > italics, I think. > I would suggest styling the defining instance in italics and the > uses as the default link styles. Seems reasonable. Robin Berjon suggested different link underline colors for internal vs. external links, and I like that idea, too... so, maybe we could compromise somewhere in the middle? Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Friday, 4 December 2009 18:00:44 UTC