On 5/29/15 8:00 PM, Joshua Bell wrote:
Let me start off proposing "for the group" and if I'm outvoted I can
send personal feedback. :)
Thanks Joshua!
All - in the absence of any contrary opinions, I propose we submit
Joshua's comments "on behalf of WebApps". However, we still have several
weeks for the comment period so if you have any feedback, please send it
by July 3
-Thanks, ArtB
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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
