W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2007

RE: [css3-page] Comments on WD-css3-page-20061010

From: Grant, Melinda <melinda.grant@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:46:11 -0000
Message-ID: <78A3602ADF54BA4EAB53F378BF55588B019F7578@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net>
To: "Peter Moulder" <Peter.Moulder@infotech.monash.edu.au>, <www-style@w3.org>


Hello Peter,

Thanks for the review!  Responses intercalated below.

I hope to be able to post an updated version that will be publicly viewable soon.

Best wishes,

Melinda 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-style-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter Moulder
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 3:39 AM
> To: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: [css3-page] Comments on WD-css3-page-20061010
> 
> 
> 
> 3.1 Can 'Non-printable area' and 'Printable area' be merged 
> into one paragraph called 'Non-printable area, Printable area' ?

Yes, I think these two definitions could be merged.
> 
> 3.1, 'Page area':  I'm not sure I understand the sense of 
> 'container' in "The page area acts as a container for all the 
> boxes laid out within a given page box."  Margin boxes are 
> within a page box, but not within the page area.  Are we to 
> understand that the page area acts as a container for margin 
> boxes even though it does not contain the margin boxes?  Does 
> this mean in terms of CSS percentages "of the containing 
> block" etc. ?  I think it should either say in what way the 
> page area acts as a container for the boxes (even if this is 
> already spelled out later in the document), or the 'acts as a 
> container'
> sentence should be removed.

Yes, the sentence you quoted is incorrect.  I've replaced it with "The page area acts as a container for all the boxes generated by the root element and its descendants that are laid out within a given page box."

> 3.1, 'Content-empty Page': It isn't sufficiently clear what 
> things are considered "printable" given that it's said that 
> "invisible content" can still be considered printable.  E.g. 
> one would have thought that content marked with
> 'visibility: hidden' would be considered invisible content, 
> yet I would otherwise guess that such content would not be 
> considered printable.  I think it would suffice to be 
> explicit about how 'visibility: hidden' (and perhaps
> 'display: none') content should be treated.

A page box containing only 'visibility: hidden' content should cause an empty page to be generated. I'll add that to the definition of 'content-empty page'.
 
> 3.3.2: Consider changing "the page is always considered to 
> be in Portrait Orientation" to "'width' always refers to the 
> shorter-or-equal of the two lengths, while 'height' always 
> refers to the greater-or-equal of the two lengths.

Yes, I think this is clearer.  Done.

> 3.4.1: Trivial: Make the '::=' of LEFTBOTTOM_SYM line up 
> with the rest.
> 
;-) Done.
> 
> 3.4.2: Presumably a missing colon in 'right'.

Yes, that's been fixed, thanks.

> Bulleted list: Change comma to 'then' in each.
> Consider adding '(else f=0)' after the first bullet item, and 
> similarly with g/h for the other two bullet items.

Hmmm, the conditional clause would still call for the comma, and I'm not sure the 'then' would add clarity. I've added the 'else' condition.

> Example VII: Typographical: Use &nbsp; in 
> '4&nbsp;centimeters' and '3&nbsp;centimeters'.

OK.
> 
> 5.3: It may be worth clarifying what is meant by a 
> paragraph, e.g. in the case that a logical paragraph (and 
> sentence) has a display block or <br> in the middle of it.
> (For reference, 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#direction says "... 
> apply the Unicode bidirectional algorithm to every sequence 
> of inline boxes uninterrupted by a forced line break or block 
> boundary. This sequence forms the "paragraph" unit in the 
> bidirectional algorithm.")
> 
Changed 'paragraph' to 'block' and reworded a bit...
> 
> 5.4: CSS2.1 has some changes that haven't yet been 
> incorporated into css3-page, e.g. it's now ABD then C rather 
> than BD then AC in the last two paragraphs 
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/page.html#allowed-page-breaks).
> I haven't done a diff to find other changes.

Yes, this change has been made in the Editor's Draft, but not yet published.
> 
> 5.6, Example XXII, second bullet item: Change 'MUST contain 
> exactly two lines'
> to 'MUST contain at least two lines'.  (One might place more 
> than two lines on the next page in order to achieve the goal 
> of "[making] all pages that don't end with a forced break 
> appear to have about the same height.")

Yes, that and a couple other clarifications have been added to this section.
> 
> pjrm.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 17 August 2007 17:48:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:52 GMT