W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2004

CSS3 Comments + Errata : Backgrounds and Fonts modules

From: Maxwell Terpstra <terpstra@myrealbox.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:18:13 -0700
Message-Id: <3ADB2893-D7D2-11D8-B27C-000D9329BE8A@myrealbox.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

BACKGROUNDS module:
-Section 3.6
  -- What about the possibility of using a <shape> value for 
background-clip?  This would make it more like other clipping 
properties, and would be more useful.  The shape coordinates would be 
relative to the box chosen by background-origin.

-Section 3.9
  -- error in prose. "In the example above, the image will only repeat 
vertically three times" should be ".. repeat horizontally.." (repeat-x)
   -- clarification/re-wording needed.  Misunderstandings may arise from 
the use of the word "repeat" which implies copies in addition to the 
original. (ie, does background-quantity:3; mean three _extra_ instances 
of the image, or three _total_ instances?)  This is especially 
confusing in the last sentence, "The value one means the image will be 
repeated once."

-Section 3.10
  -- grammatical error in prose. 'Values of this property have the 
following meanings: "length"-measure that indicates the spacing of the 
image with regard to initial position.'  Perhaps should be '"length" is 
a measure that indicates the spacing of the image with regard to 
initial position.'
  -- clarification needed regarding negative values.  Will a negative 
spacing result in overlapping repetitions?

FONTS module
-Section 2 (Introduction)
  -- the note about using em as a length unit should be moved up one 
paragraph (since it has nothing to do with the coordinate space)
  -- reference made to TEXT module to define baseline-tables, but there 
is no link, and I could not find the string "baseline-table" anywhere 
in the referenced module (or even a definition of baseline for that 
matter).  Really, since ascent and descent are defined explicitly here, 
so should the idea of baseline-tables.
  -- grammatical error. Second-to-last paragraph: "In addition, this 
modules specifies.." ; should be ".. this module .."
  -- The last paragraph (about initial and inherit values) is important, 
and could easily be missed or misunderstood in this context. It may be 
a good idea to move it somewhere else, and/or mark it up a bit to make 
it stand out.  Also, a link should be provided to the property index 
table, where the meanings of 'initial' are shown.

-Section 3.1
  -- about midway through..  "In addition, font descriptors are used to 
describe the characteristics of fonts, so that a suitable font can be 
chosen to create the desired appearance. These font descriptors are 
used new font information to the font database which is built on 
locally available resources."  The second sentence here doesn't make 
sense.  Did this perhaps mean, "These font descriptors make use of 
additional information in the font database?"
  -- matching step 1.a. - last sentence is confusing and unneeded.

-Section 3.3
  -- font-variant property
   - does specifying small-caps imply that the font should be bicameral? 
Would a unicameral font-face fail the matching process if small-caps 
was set?  This was mentioned breifly at the end of the font-variant 
description
   - "Insofar as this property causes text to be transformed to 
uppercase, the same considerations as for 'text-transform' apply."  
Need a link to the text-transform property, or the "considerations" 
should be restated explicitly here.

-Section 4.2
  -- grammatical error.  "This property allows author control over 
applying anti-aliasing fonts when rendered."  should be ".. over 
applying anti-aliasing to fonts .."

-Section 4.3
  -- not important but..  "font-emphasize" (verb form) seems weird, 
especially when you tack on -style and -position to it.  I think it 
would be better as "font-emphasis"


Overall, these modules are looking really good! I found that the FONT 
module in particular was much more understandable than it's counterpart 
in the CSS2 spec.  Keep up the good work!

Sincerely,
  Maxwell Terpstra
Received on Saturday, 17 July 2004 05:29:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:31 GMT