W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2014

Re: [css-break] more editorial nits

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:38:50 -0800
Message-ID: <52D5F4BA.5040000@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 01/14/2014 12:42 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some more nits that I found:
>
> The section generic break values[1] uses the term "principle box"
> which hasn't been introduced before. principle to what?

That should be principal box, actually. Added link to CSS2.1.
   http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#block-boxes

This section of CSS2.1 isn't great, but fixing that is out of scope
for Fragmentation. :/

> The “Applies to” row of 'break-inside’ says "flow that that establish”[2].

It says "elements in the normal flow that that establish formatting
contexts, or are block containers, table row groups, or table rows",
which is correct afaict.

> (Also, the anker name is #break-within, you maybe want to change that)

The anchor for break-before/after is break-between, this is
intended to be parallel to that, so, not supposed to match
the property name necessarily...

> The properties, break-inside, break-after and break-before say “generated box”. A box might not be generated IIRC. Maybe you mean "fragmentation container"?

No, it should be "principal box". :) The term "generated box"
is inherited from 2.1, I think. It's more accurate to say
"principal box", though.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 02:39:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 15 January 2014 02:39:21 UTC