W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2015

[wbs] response to 'TR Design Survey'

From: Chris Lilley via WBS Mailer <sysbot+wbs@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 20:48:02 +0000
To: chris@w3.org,www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <wbs-4771215251cc3931ebc566afa7e961b0@w3.org>
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'TR Design Survey'
(public) for Chris Lilley.

> 
> ---------------------------------
> Group
> ----
> 
> On behalf of which W3C Working Group are you answering this survey?
> 
> 
> 
 
WebFonts

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Sample(s)
> ----
> Paste in URLs to a representative sample (1-3 links) of your specs. If
> styling differs substantially between /TR and your editor's drafts,
> please link to both versions. 
> 
> 
 
http://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF20ER/ (TR, vanilla W3C style)
http://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF2/ (TR, vanilla) and
http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/ (ED, slightly different styling)

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Specification Processor(s)
> ----
> What spec pre-processor(s) does your WG use?
> 
> 
 
none

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Group style sheet(s)
> ----
> Paste in URLs to any WG-specific style sheets you use.
> 
> 
 
http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/conform.css

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Like
> ----
> What do you like about your current styles?
> 
> 
 
For ED, we use generated content so that each testable assertion has a very
visible flag to say whether it applies to User Agents, Authoring Tools, or
File Format. We also have :target styling so that linking to a testable
assertion hilights the exact text of the assertion, rather than just
scrolling the viewport. An example
http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-mustNotDuplicateTables


> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Dislike
> ----
> What do you dislike about your current styles?
> 
> 
 
We delete them and make them an alternate style for the /TR pulications, so
the spec isn't plastered with coloured stickers by default. However,
browser support for alternate stylesheets blows.

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Complex style
> ----
> Paste in URLs to any parts of your spec that are stylistically complex or
> tricky, and we should therefore be careful not to screw up.
> 
> 
 
Nothing especially complex

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Table style
> ----
> The new styles will include rules for rendering data tables. These will
> be opt-in by class name, and rely heavily on good markup (use of THEAD,
> TBODY, COLGROUP, scope attributes, etc.). See Simple Example, Less Simple
> Example, and Extra-Complex Example. Paste in URLs to a sampling of any
> data tables you are using so that we can try to accommodate those in the
> styling, if practical. 
> 
> 
 
our tables are basic, but some are *huge*. We do :hover row hilighting to
aid readability. 
http://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF20ER/#appendixB

If the new style had column sorting or table collapsing we would certainly
use that

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> CSS WG Style
> ----
> The CSSWG has made a number of minor improvements to the existing spec
> styles, which we might just adopt wholesale. Please comment on what you
> like/dislike about these styles, as demonstrated in the CSS3 Text
> specification.
> 
> 
 
paragraph permalink symbol
per-section test suite summary 
shorter measure and slightly looser line height for increased readability
(both blocked by previous webmaster)

> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Anything else?
> ----
> 
>     Is there anything else we should consider?
> 
> 
> 
 
not really

> 
> These answers were last modified on 4 June 2015 at 20:46:19 U.T.C.
> by Chris Lilley
> 
Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/tr-design-survey-2015/ until 2015-07-07.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2015 20:48:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:35:20 UTC