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

Re: [CSSWG][css-text-3] CSS3 Text Last Call Working Draft

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 07:07:48 -0700
Message-ID: <53CD1EB4.8070603@inkedblade.net>
To: CE Whitehead <cewcathar@hotmail.com>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 05/16/2014 07:58 AM, CE Whitehead wrote:
> Hi, once more fantasai; I do have a bit more feedback -- more comments on:
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-3/#uax29
>
> 2.1 Case Transforms: the 'text-transform' property
> following the list of possible values and just above "EXAMPLE 3"
>
> "The definition of “word“ used for capitalize is UA-dependent; [UAX29] is suggested (but not required) for determining such
> word boundaries. Authors should not expect capitalize to follow language-specific titlecasing conventions (such as skipping
> articles in English). "
>
> { COMMENT: I cannot make sense of "used for" here --
> do you mean that,
> =>
> "for the value, 'capitalize,' what constitutes a "word" is UA-dependent?"
> I assume so; you can of course leave your sentence as is -- nothing wrong with the grammar, but it jolted me reading it }

Fair enough. Fixed as you suggest. :)

>
> * * *
> 4. White Space Processing Details
> 4th par -- which is note under the 3rd par
>
> "Note that the document parser may have not only normalized any segment breaks, but also collapsed other space characters or
> otherwise processed white space according to markup rules. Because CSS processing occurs after the parsing stage, it is not
> possible to restore these characters for styling. Therefore, some of the behavior specified below can be affected by these
> limitations and may be user agent dependent."
>
> {COMMENT: this sentence is fine; however I would prefer to see the simple present tense here as the present perfect suggests
> to me that you have just talked about what the document processor did, that is the present perfect usually -- but not always
> -- needs an antecedent in the past tense. (You are mostly using the present tense in this section.)

Fixed.

> * * *
> IMPORTANT GRAMMAR
> 4.1.1
> par 1 1rst bullet 4th item in list
>
> "Any space immediately following another collapsible space—even one outside the boundary of the inline containing that space,
> provided they are both within the same inline formatting context—is collapsed to have zero advance width."
> {COMMENT: IMO "they" has no previous referent;
> you have the two spaces but you mention them one at a time;
> so I would say for extra clarity, "both spaces"
> }

Done.

> * * *
> IMPORTANT
> 4.1.1 Example 5, esp last paragraph --
> "Note that there will be two spaces between A and B, and none between B and C. This is best avoided by putting spaces outside
> the element instead of just inside the opening and closing tags and, where practical, by relying on implicit bidirectionality
> instead of explicit embedding levels. "
>
> {COMMENT: I cannot imagine anyone's leaving spaces just inside the span or rtl or whatever tags, flanking the text inside an
> element. But o.k., someone might do this.
> But in your discussion you say, leave the spaces outside the element; well the person did have spaces outside the element, but
> the trouble was it was collapsed with the spaces inside the element.
> So I am a little confused.
> Do you mean that the person writing code should not leave spaces inside the element tags that wrap the element text, that
> spaces should be placed outside the element tags only? If so you could say "only."}

I think the "instead" covers this. Closing no change, if
that's alright with you.

---

Btw, might I beg you to use an email-quoting mechanism for
your spec quotes? I'm happy to receive plaintext email
with > or # quote marks or HTML email with appropriate use
of <blockquote> or some other formatting convention (such
as italics). It's hard for me to pick out your comments
with the current formatting: it all flows together, and I
must confess to procrastinating on my response because of
this visual-parsing frustration...

(Fwiw, I typically #-quote spec prose, |-quote proposed text,
and >-quote the message I'm replying to. But you don't have
to be so specific... as long as I can visually distinguish
your comments from the quoted text, it's fine.)

Thanks!

~fantasai

p.s. Also, please don't tag your messages with [CSSWG]. All
of www-style is for CSSWG discussion -- the [CSSWG] tag is
just for official CSSWG announcements and minutes. :)
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 14:08:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:23 UTC