Re: [css-masking] editorial changes - spec update

On Jan 8, 2014, at 9:51 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> On 12/17/2013 04:19 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
>> On Dec 17, 2013, at 1:04 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Please add another editorial issue:
>>>>>> - Section titles should explain the purpose of each property,
>>>>>>  as in http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-backgrounds/
>>>>>> Should be easy to fix, and I think would help people find what
>>>>>> they're looking for if they don't already know what it's called.
>> 
>> I consider http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/masking/issues-lc-2013.html#issue-24 to be fixed unless their is an objection.
> 
> # Clipping Path Source: the clip-path property
> 
> Would recommend s/Clipping Path Source/Clipping Shape/. The word
> "Source" makes me think this is a reference to something; but in
> many common cases it won't be, it'll be an inline shape. Also
> wanted to introduce the word "shape" since "path" is in the property
> name. This makes things easier to find. (E.g. Text uses "Tracking"
> to point at the "letter-spacing" property so that both terms are
> up front.)

I renamed the section as suggested.

> 
> # Rectangular Clipping: the clip property
> 
> This makes me think that if I want a rectangular clip shape,
> I should use 'clip'. But that's not true. For one thing, 'clip-path'
> also does rectangles. For another, we don't want anyone to use 'clip'
> because it's deprecated! I'm not sure what to put as a title here,
> but it should not mislead people looking at the table of contents.
> And maybe throw in the word "deprecated" there, e.g.
>  Quirky Clipping: the deprecated 'clip' property
> (But please come up with something better than "quirky”.)

I moved the section to the end of the document without a reference number. I couldn’t figure out how to create an Appendix as suggested by Tab.

> 
> # The clipPath element
> 
> This one should be titled "Clipping Path Source" :)
> 
> # The mask element
> 
> Similarly, "Mask Shape Source" would make a good title here.
> 
> Alternately, or additionally perhaps, it might make more sense
> to add the word "Source" to the top-level section, e.g.
>  SVG Clipping Path Sources
>  SVG Mask Sources
> That would make it clear that these sections aren't about applying
> clipping/masking to SVG, but sourcing it from SVG.

I chose the alternative. I renamed the main sections as suggested. I did not rename the subsections since it seems to be redundant.

> 
> # Masking Type: the mask-source-type property
> 
> I would call this Mask Interpretation or Mask Image Interpretation.
> "Type" is very vague, and this is more accurately described as
> specifying how to interpret the mask data.
> 
> # Masking Type: the mask-type property
> 
> Same here.

I changed the definitions of mask-type and mask-source-type. The former is a longhand for the mask shorthand, the latter applies to <mask> elements. This fits the description of the main section: SVG Mask Sources.

I used the titles:

Mask Image Interpretation: the ‘mask-type’ property

and

Mask Source Interpretation: the ‘mask-source-type’ property.


> 
> # 6.1.1 Clipping paths, geometry, and pointer events
> 
> I think this section goes under the main Clipping section
> that defines how clip paths are applied to an element, not
> how their geometry is defined by an element.

I merged the section with the main section, changed wording so that it is not SVG specific anymore and added a small example.

Greetings,
Dirk

> 
> ~fantasai
>

Received on Friday, 10 January 2014 17:15:07 UTC