W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

RE: [css3-break] Editorial comments

From: Mihai Balan <mibalan@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 13:46:18 +0000
To: Mihai Balan <mibalan@adobe.com>, "WWW Style (www-style@w3.org)" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <32E5AE8565CC6142BA0AAFA5A95697E04D2D6A98F8@eurmbx01.eur.adobe.com>
Also, I feel a clarification is needed about what does "truncation" means in the context of section 5.2 Margins at breaks[1]. I've talked to multiple people and they seemed to be equally divided on two possible interpretation of what "truncate" means:
  1. effectively set to 0 (similar to the truncate() C function for files :) )
  2. trim it to whatever length there is between the content edge of the content and the content(?) edge of the fragmentation container.

Thoughts?

[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-break/#break-margins 

-----Original Message-----
From: Mihai Balan [mailto:mibalan@adobe.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:34 PM
To: WWW Style (www-style@w3.org)
Subject: [css3-break] Editorial comments

Hi there,
A couple of editorial comments on the Fragmentation spec
- in section 2 of the spec, the _fragmented flow_ is defined in terms of a _fragmenation root_ - notice the missing _t_ in _fragmenation_
- in in section 3.3, in the second to last paragraph, in the second paragraph describing the allowed values for `orphans` and `widows`, an _and_ is missing after _are invalid_
- when describing the behavior for line breaking, at times CSS 2.1 is mentioned and sometimes CSS3TEXT is. I couldn't find an exact reason why that is and I think it would be better to be consistent

Hope this helps,
Mihai
 
Mihai Balan | Quality Engineer @ Web Engine team |  mibalan@adobe.com | +4-031.413.3653 / x83653 | Adobe Systems Romania
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 13:46:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC