Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- design:html-requirements [2014/09/15 09:09]
rsewikiadmin
+++ design:html-requirements [2014/09/15 13:03]
rsewikiadmin
@@ Line 114: / Line 114: @@
 > Should the HTML tags in the Appendixes stay (and get cleaned up) or be removed?
+>
+> Using classes instead of ids to aid with styling.
+> This is a very good point. If others agree, I would propose that the current
+> draft be changed from "<div id='abstract'>" to "<div class='abstract'>" and
+> that we specify classes for all sections that seem to have special meanings.
+> It's not clear what "same logic" in "Paragraphs are wrapped in <div>s using
+> the same logic as sections" means. Is this intending to talk about how id
+> attributes get placed, or something else?
+> The document says "Additionally, anchors expressed in the source XML should
+> be exposed as anchors in the HTML as well." I suggested in my nits message
+> striking "Additionally," and "as well". But it occurs to me that the document
+> needs to be more specific and reflect _how_ the source XML allows anchors to
+> be expressed, and how those will be translated into the HTML. This falls, I
+> think, into being clearer about author-provided and autogenerated ids.
+>
+> There's text that says to wrap section numbers in an
+> <a class='self-ref' href=...>. I suspect this should apply to other <a href>
+> that are generated?
+>
+> The paragraph that begins "For other block items, such as <figure>, <t>,
+> and <texttable> is talking about XML, not HTML. Can it be rewritten more
+> specifically in terms of input and output?

RSE Wiki Archive

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools