- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:24:54 +0000
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Susan Lesch <lesch@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Marking as closed in the subject line for clarity. OK Dave? Brian At 11:10 04/03/2003 +0000, Dave Beckett wrote: > >>>Susan Lesch said: > > > > Here are minor editorial comments for your "RDF/XML Syntax > > Specification (Revised)" Last Call Working Draft [1] to use or not, as > > you see fit. > >Thank you. I will take these editorial comments, not recording as >a last call issue on the document. > >I've one thing that is more feedback to W3C doc production than >related to your comments, but it reminded me. You said: > ><snip/> > > The grammar CSS is nicely done. > >I did spend some time looking around the CSS styles in various docs >(latest TRs at the time and the draft manual of style) to see what to >do where examples were needed - large blocks of (possibly monospace >formatted) examples outdented with captions, extra information. > >I eventually decided to use some CSS styles taken from XML Schemas, >slightly modified. My concern was that the colours combinations I >used were accessible enough - with high-enough contrast, suitable for >printing, so tha they were as usable as possible. For example the >use of red=bad, green=good is probably not a good idea for people >with red/green sight problems, but might be with a key and use of ><u>? > >The figures 1 & 2 in [1] use black-on-red and black-on-green which >again might be a bad combination? > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/ > >Maybe I worry too much! > >Dave
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 10:24:15 UTC