- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:04:52 -0700
- To: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Cc: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
On Monday 2008-08-04 09:31 +0200, Christoph Päper wrote: > > Bert Bos (2008-07-21): >> >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-css3-color-20080721/ > It's often hard to see whether previous comments have been received and > whether they were either accepted or rejected (and why). Without any > feedback at all, even implicit, I have to assume my comments got ignored > or, worse, have not been read. I'd rather not repeat myself, but I think > this would really improve the specification a lot for readers at very > little cost, i.e. without changes to the prose. The disposition of comments is available at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Jun/att-0045/disposition-2.html and linked from http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-css3-color-20080721/#status . > Back in March I suggested to reorganize the section order to aid readers > -- it currently more or less resembles the historic development of this > module. Links and anchors should be able to stay as they are. You should > also get rid of lonely headings, i.e. those that have no siblings (e.g. > "4.2.4.1. HSL Examples"). > > <http://www.w3.org/mid/E9F17F41-5B93-4A1C-8E17-793A87221BB0@crissov.de> > (V1) > <http://www.w3.org/mid/A4911912-170C-4CC0-882A-D579C406A37F@crissov.de> > (V2) I managed to miss this. I think it came in after compiled the list of all comments on the draft by searching the list. I added those that I noticed after that point; I'll try to get the rest for the next draft. (It took much longer to get the draft published than I hoped.) I'm not sure the additional value from such organizational changes is worth the work to do this; the main cost at this point is actually not the editing of the spec but reorganizing the test suite to match the new organization. > I assume there will be a W3C QA review of the document before PR > publication, which should catch orthographical, typographical and other > editorial errors like mixed quote sign usage ("'foo'" and "‘bar’"), "¡" > instead of "°" or inconsistent heading case. I somewhat doubt this would be the case. The source is in CVS on dev.w3.org; patches are welcome. I think the mixed quote sign usage is a result of the preprocessor that we use for all CSS modules. I would note it actually looks consistent: slanted quotes are used for properties and straight quotes for values, since there's special preprocessing of properties. I'm not sure that's a good idea, though. > Does W3C style really recommend / require a dot after first-level > heading numbers ("3.", not "3"), but not after all subsequent ones > ("3.1", not "3.1.")? I think this is the result of the preprocessor that we use for all CSS modules. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 17:05:36 UTC