W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2008

Re: [css3-color] New last call for comments on CSS Color

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>
Message-ID: <20080804170452.GA18485@pickering.dbaron.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
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. 
> " 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

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.


L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 17:05:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:39 UTC