XMLSec questionnaire response re /TR Style Sheet Update 2016

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

XMLSec questionnaire response re /TR Style Sheet Update 2016

Frederick Hirsch
fantasai,

Here is the /TR style sheet response from the XML Security WG. I am sending the text version as I have already completed the web questionnaire on behalf of the Web Annotation WG.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Chair, W3C XML Security WG

www.fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch

----- start ---

This is a text version of the public questionnaire:

"TR Design Survey"

We recommend that you only use this review form if you are unable
to use the online questionnaire, which is available at:

  https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/tr-design-survey-2015/
If you choose to send in this questionnaire form instead of using the
online questionnaire, please mail the completed form to [hidden email]
by 31 July 2015 at 23:59 Boston Time.

The online questionnaire helps the W3C Team reduce errors and to
compute results automatically. If you believe there is a technical
reason why you are unable to use the online questionnaire, please send
the relevant information to Dominique Hazael-Massieux ([hidden email]),
copying [hidden email], but in the meantime we welcome your email
response to this form.

Thank you.

=====================
Questionnaire starts

I,
>
> ---------------------------------
> Group
> ----
>
> On behalf of which W3C Working Group are you answering this survey?
>
>
>

XML Security WG, http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/

>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Sample(s)
> ----
> 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.
>
>

XML Signature 1.1, http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-xmldsig-core1-20130411/

XML Encryption 1.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-xmlenc-core1-20130411/

XML Signature Best Practices http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-xmldsig-bestpractices-20130411/

XML Signature 2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-xmldsig-core2-20130411/
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Specification Processor(s)
> ----
> What spec pre-processor(s) does your WG use?
>
>

ReSpec, older (original version)

>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Group style sheet(s)
> ----
> Paste in URLs to any WG-specific style sheets you use.
>
>

We used ReSpec style incorporating the following group specific style for the Best Practices document

http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/Drafts/best-practices/practiceStyle.css

>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Like
> ----
> What do you like about your current styles?
>
>

Familiarity, ease of use via ReSpec.

We made special effort to make best practices easy to author and display clearly, though combination of ReSpec additions and styling.

>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Dislike
> ----
> What do you dislike about your current styles?
>
>

Status section could be clearer for different sections

print version can cut off text that goes off page

>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Complex style
> ----
> 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.
>
>

We rely on ReSpec, but code sample and example displays are important, as well as best practices formatting.

>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Table style
> ----
> 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 Simple Example, Less Simple
> Example, and Extra-Complex Example. 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.
>
>

None

>
>
> ---------------------------------
> CSS WG Style
> ----
> The CSSWG has made a number of minor improvements to the existing spec
> styles, which we might just adopt wholesale. Please comment on what you
> like/dislike about these styles, as demonstrated in the CSS3 Text
> specification.
>
>

not familiar with this

>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Anything else?
> ----
>
>   Is there anything else we should consider?
>
>
>

Need to make sure  new styles work and are incorporated with ReSpec.

Some old specs need to be maintained, easier to minimize changes if old styles are still available etc to minimize differences.
Need way to specify 'use legacy', perhaps by year. (e.g. generate diff without changes due to styling...)

e.g. when updating a spec that is a few years old, do not want any styles to change, so that intended changes are obvious.

>
> These answers were last modified on
> by
>

=== end ===