Let me start off proposing "for the group" and if I'm outvoted I can send personal feedback. :)
Standard stylesheet: http://www.w3.org/TR/IndexedDB/ My tweaked styles: https://w3c.github.io/IndexedDB/ CSS changes are visible at: https://github.com/w3c/IndexedDB/blob/gh-pages/index.html#L79 Differences: * Impose a maximum body width and center to improve readability on wide windows + * Increase body line spacing to ~1.45 to improve readability of dense text + * Size of inline <code> text should match body text size + * Reduce vertical space taken up by note/Issue blocks + * Size of block code samples should be at least slightly closer to body size * Introduce standard "switch" <dl> style These were (of course!) inspired by some of the newer, more readable (IMHO) specs styles floating about. The items marked with + above seem to already be addressed Fantasai's http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-3/ (i.e. I'm borrowing from the right people...) Other notes: * Current IDL blocks are pretty garish; I think they could use a little *less* syntax highlighting. * In dense algorithmic steps, the underlines on linked terms become fairly cluttered since nearly every word is a reference. I suppose the alternatives are color (?), style (italics is used for variables), or weight (used for definitions). Ideas? On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@gmail.com> wrote: > Fantasai is leading an effort to improve the style sheet used for new > Technical Reports. She created a survey [1] that is supposed to reflect the > entire group's feedback but she also welcomes individual feedback via the > spec-prod list [2], using the 10 questions below as a guide. > > If you have individual feedback, please send it directly to [2], using a > Subject: prefix of "[restyle]" by July 7. > > If you have feedback you propose be submitted on behalf of the group, > please reply to this e-mail, by July 3 so I have time to collate the > feedback and submit it by the deadline. > > In the absence of any feedback on behalf of the group, my reply to the > survey will be that the existing style sheet meets the "We Can Live With It > Test". > > -Thanks, ArtB > > [1] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/tr-design-survey-2015/ > [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/spec-prod/ > > On 5/27/15 2:02 PM, fantasai wrote: > >> We are updating the style sheets for W3C technical reports. >> This year's styling project is minor improvements and cleanup, >> not major changes, so the look and feel will remain substantially the >> same. >> Also, please note that since the publication system work is ongoing, >> no markup will be harmed in the development of the 2016 style sheet. >> Given that, however, we hope to improve the quality and consistency >> of styles used across W3C. >> >> This survey must be completed by each working group on behalf of >> the members of that working group (i.e not only on behalf of the >> chairs). >> >> 1. What group are you answering on behalf of? >> >> 2. 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. >> >> 3. What spec pre-processor(s) does your WG use? >> >> 4. Paste in URLs to any WG-specific style sheets you use. >> >> 5. What do you like about your current styles? >> >> 6. What do you dislike about your current styles? >> >> 7. 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. >> >> 8. 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 examples [1][2][3]. >> 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. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css-text-3/#white-space-property >> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-align/#overview >> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-writing-modes/#logical-to-physical >> >> 9. The CSSWG has made a number of minor improvements to the existing >> spec >> styles, which we might just adopt wholesale. [4] >> Please comment on what you like/dislike about these styles, >> as demonstrated in the CSS3 Text Editor's Draft. [5] >> >> [4] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/default.css >> [5] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-3/ >> >> 10. Is there anything else we should consider? >> >> Individual members of the WG, W3C Staff, and others are also welcome >> to send feedback to spec-p...@w3.org. Please be sure to use "[restyle]" >> in the subject line. >> >> Based on the responses and the feedback and suggestions of any individuals >> who want to help, I will create a new spec stylesheet for 2016 >> publications >> and (as Eric suggested) a short sample spec showing off these styles. >> There >> should be plenty of time to comment on the specifics and to incorporate a >> few more rounds of feedback before the "last call" period at TPAC; however >> I do need to understand the WGs' requirements up front, hence the survey. >> >> ~fantasai >> >> > >