Hi, David-
+spec-prod
L. David Baron wrote (on 12/2/09 5:02 PM):
One thing I'm not a big fan of in this proposal is the color
conventions used for "Issue" and "Proposal" text, which swap in a
different foreground color. I somewhat prefer the styles I've used
a few times, e.g., in http://dbaron.org/css/intrinsic/#intrinsic ,
which are clearly distinct, but which I find not quite as jarring.
Fair enough. It doesn't bother me, but different people have different
tastes. I imagine that if we get a real designer to lend a hand, we
will end up with better visual representations for everything than we
have right now.
One other note is that I find the styles here:
# The defining instance of a term is marked up like this: term.
# Uses of that term are marked up like this.
a bit odd, both because:
(1) it seems odd to switch to a monospace font for something that's
not code, and
(2) defining instances of terms are traditionally styled in
italics, I think.
I would suggest styling the defining instance in italics and the
uses as the default link styles.
Seems reasonable. Robin Berjon suggested different link underline
colors for internal vs. external links, and I like that idea, too... so,
maybe we could compromise somewhere in the middle?
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
