Today we launched the new W3C. We’ve been working on it for a while, so I’m happy that it is seeing the light of day.
Comments are flowing in, some touching on issues we identified when we announced the beta version. Here are a few:
- Is the CSS invalid? The CSS does not validate with the W3C CSS validator. We mentioned this as one limitation of the site back in March. As we wrote then, “Because of known interoperability issues, we have accepted to use CSS that does not validate with the CSS validator. Over time we hope to evolve towards valid CSS.”
- Why do some pages (such as the graphics introduction, though there are others as well) look unfinished? They are; the generic template text is still there from the beta. We decided to launch the site even without all the content we hope to have. We think the site is a significant improvement over the old one, and so prefer to begin using it rather than wait for more content. The site will continue to evolve, and I hope much more easily. We are asking staff, Working Groups, and the community to help out and provide content. We’d love your help, and are happy to acknowledge your contributions on the pages. Let us know at email@example.com.
- Some of the rewritten Recommendations have formatting bugs. Unfortunately, one of our processing passes modified the markup and we didn’t realize it; we’ll be fixing those problems in place. For the moment we are only using the new templates for Recommendations (old and new). As we gain more experience and resolve formatting issues, we expect to apply the new templates to more publications. One advantage of the new approach will be that it will be easier to tell right up front when a specification has been superseded by another.
There are also a few rendering issues we are aware of and plan to fix over the next few days. Please tell us about any issues you encounter on firstname.lastname@example.org. Please be sure to tell us the URI of the page in question and what browser and OS you are using.