W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

Re: [css3-regions] Editorial comments round 1

From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:03:37 -0800
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F59832A2-A11C-4D15-AA66-D410F756EE62@adobe.com>

On Jan 24, 2012, at 5:37 PM, fantasai wrote:

> On 01/24/2012 11:57 AM, Vincent Hardy wrote:
>> 
>>> 2. CSS regions concepts
>>> -----------------------
>>> 
>>> I think section could use some editorial work. I don't have specific
>>> suggestions, but I do think it could use some reorganization.
>> 
>> [vh] If you do not have suggestions, could you describe what issues you see?
>> That will help me understand and see how to improve it.
> 
> Hard to say. Just seemed somewhat disorganized, broken up into many small
> sections that are not parallel-ly constructed.

[vh] I agree that the paragraphs are not parallel-ly constructed but I do not see why this is an issue. When describing concepts, I think there are times when some are easier to explain/describe than others and that causes a different requirement for writing them up. 

Regarding the comment that the section is disorganized, can you clarify what you mean? There are 3 topics, which are the main concepts: 

a. regions, which receive flow content, 
b. named flows, which receive elements
c. rules for breaking the content coming from named flows into the regions that receive them.

what do you find disorganized in that break-down? 

> 
>>> Also, definitions sections are generally normative, not non-normative.
>> 
>> [vh] ok. I thought that normative text had to be made of testable assertions.
>> Some of the text, like the definition of a region, is not testable. So I
>> guess I was working with the wrong assumption?
> 
> Yeah, not testable != non-normative. If you remove the non-normative parts
> of a spec, you should get the same spec, just harder to understand. :) If
> you remove the definitions upon which your conformance requirements are
> based, presumably the conformance requirements don't make much sense...

[vh] I see. I'll change that.

Thanks,
-v
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 02:04:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:48 GMT