🔧 Auto-commit from sysupdate on 2026-05-19 21:49

2026-05-19 21:49:14 +02:00
parent e9e772d69c
commit f83aae27c5
132 changed files with 14728 additions and 38 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+---
+name: ARC spec — comprehensive audit against Bringhurst / Rutter / Tschichold for absolute compliance
+description: Aspiration logged 2026-05-03 — at an appropriate future point, re-read the entire AldineXXI spec against the three master-typographer canonical works to verify absolute compliance with high typography. Different from the SCSS audit (which is implementation hygiene); this is *spec/principle* alignment with the lineage ARC has chosen.
+type: project
+originSessionId: 8d9ac240-47df-4578-aec1-a9dd32965027
+---
+# ARC spec — master-typographer compliance audit (pending)
+
+**Steward direction 2026-05-03**: *"at some appropriate point, we should reread the spec against Bringhurst, Rutter, and Tschichold to be sure we're in absolute compliance with high-typography."*
+
+## What this is
+
+A focused future audit session that re-reads the **entire AldineXXI specification** (`docs/AldineXXI-Codex/AldineXXI-specification.md`) against the canonical works of the three master typographers ARC has chosen as authority:
+
+- **Bringhurst, *The Elements of Typographic Style*** — primary authority; the source from which most ARC conventions derive
+- **Rutter, *Web Typography*** — Bringhurst transferred to the medium; verifies that ARC's web-specific implementations honor the underlying principles
+- **Tschichold** — *The Form of the Book* + the Penguin design rules + scattered essays; the contemplative-literary lineage that complements Bringhurst's principles
+
+The goal is **absolute compliance** with high typography — not "mostly correct," not "good enough," but every spec section verified against the canonical sources to catch drift, omissions, or conventions ARC has accumulated by accident rather than by considered choice.
+
+## What this is NOT
+
+- **NOT the SCSS audit** — that's implementation hygiene (dead code, conflicting rules, banish-bold violations, etc.). Logged separately in `project-arc-web-typography-spec-coverage.md`. The two audits sit beside each other; SCSS audit is "is the implementation clean?"; this audit is "is the spec correct against the masters?"
+- **NOT a re-read of every essay or piece of content** — the spec is the deliverable; if the spec is right and content follows the spec, content is right by inheritance
+- **NOT a one-shot drive-by** — each section gets considered review against the canonical sources; corrections are made deliberately; uncertain points are surfaced for steward decision rather than papered over
+
+## When to do it
+
+Conditions for the right moment:
+
+- After the current Tier 1 + Tier 2 spec work has settled (Lists ✓, Code ✓, Headings ✓, Numerals ✓, Smart Punctuation ✓, Selection ✓, Bold audit, Tables — most of these done by 2026-05-03)
+- After the SCSS audit has cleared accumulated implementation cruft (the spec audit shouldn't have to second-guess SCSS; it should be able to focus on principle alignment)
+- After the v1 chamber collection migration has happened (so the audit doesn't have to deal with chamber-legacy edge cases that will be retired anyway)
+- When the steward has a focused session window — this is **slow, deep work**, not a quick pass
+
+## Audit dimensions
+
+For each spec section, verify against the master sources:
+
+1. **Principle alignment** — does the section state a principle that the masters would recognize? Is the principle stated correctly (not garbled or partially understood)?
+2. **Convention specifics** — for any specific value (size ratio, color, weight, spacing), is it traceable to a master-source recommendation, OR is it a defensible local choice with named reasoning?
+3. **Authority citations** — when ARC cites Bringhurst/Rutter/Tschichold, is the citation accurate? (Section number, page reference, actual position vs paraphrase)
+4. **Drift from accumulation** — has any convention crept in that doesn't match the lineage? (Like the em-dash → spaced en-dash switch on 2026-05-03 corrected: ARC had been using Chicago convention by accident, not by considered alignment with Bringhurst)
+5. **Omissions** — what does the master cover that the spec doesn't? (E.g., does ARC have anything to say about widow/orphan control, paragraph-first-line indent vs block-paragraph, baseline grid, hyphenation thresholds — all Bringhurst territory)
+6. **Web-specific verification** — for sections that are web-medium-specific, does Rutter's adaptation hold? Or has ARC drifted from his guidance?
+
+## What the audit produces
+
+- **Alignment report** per spec section — green (matches masters), yellow (defensible local choice with reasoning), red (drift to correct)
+- **Correction PRs** — for any red findings, propose the correct treatment with master-source citation
+- **Spec additions** — for omissions where ARC should have a position but doesn't, draft the missing section with master-grounded reasoning
+- **Decision queue** — for genuine open questions where the masters disagree or don't address ARC's specific case, surface for steward decision
+
+## Cross-references
+
+- `project-arc-web-typography-spec-coverage.md` — the inventory of web-only typography elements; complementary to this audit
+- `project-arc-rework.md` — the broader ARC rework landscape; this audit fits under "Style guide redevelopment" + spec stewardship
+- `feedback-arc-flag-spec-inconsistencies.md` — the working contract for surfacing spec contradictions in the moment; this audit is the *systematic* version of that real-time discipline
+
+## Sequencing relative to other pending work
+
+Likely order across the larger ARC rework:
+
+1. (NOW) Tier 1 + Tier 2 spec work landing (Lists, Code, Headings, Numerals, Smart Punctuation, Selection, Bold audit, Tables)
+2. (NEXT) SCSS audit pass — implementation cruft cleanup
+3. (THEN) Type-pass — corpus content typology audit (gated on MemPalace return)
+4. (THEN) Breadcrumb spec session (gated on type-pass)
+5. (THEN) v1 chamber collection migration
+6. (**THEN**) **This audit — master-typographer spec compliance review**
+7. (THEN) Multi-language spec session
+8. (THEN) BMF–MemPalace connector (gated on L1 reliability resolution)
+
+This audit comes LATE in the sequence intentionally — best done when the spec is otherwise stable and the implementation is clean. Auditing a moving target is wasted work.