A few anomalies in the draft...

Chris Wilson writes:

 > A few other things I've noted in the draft, some of which are essentially 
 > typos...

 > 2) I still feel the requirement of indicating to the reader which 
 > stylesheets are in effect and allowing individual control of them is out of 
 > place as a conformance requirement.  It adds unnecessary complexity to the 
 > UI when the main goal can be accomplished in an application-specific way 
 > (e.g., "Ignore stylesheets" toggle and accessibility stylesheets).

I agree that this is a user interface issue that may be handled
differently by different UAs. The motivation for having that
requirement is to preserve the user's right to apply a personal style
sheet. Would you have a suggestion for an acceptable wording?

 > 1) Anchor pseudo-classes: The ":link" pseudo-class seems redundant.  Isn't 
 > this just the default behaviour for <A>?  The only use I could see is for 

No, target anchors are also A elements, but should not be rendered as
links. Explanation added.

 > 3) The vertical-align description makes reference to the <C> tag - this 
 > should be changed to <SPAN>.


 > 4) Vertical-align: 'text-top' is described as "align with the top of the 
 > parent element's font".  Align WHAT with the top of the parent element's 

Good point, fixed..

 > 5) It is stated that pseudo-classing a selector that already uses a class, 
 > e.g.:
 > H.foo:first-letter { vertical-align: top; font-size: 300%; float: left }
 > is allowed, but the order of the class and pseudo-class is not.  Is any 
 > order allowed, or only element.class:pseudoclass? This should be explicitly 
 > stated.

It was in the formal grammar, but it will be better explained in the
text version of the spec.

 > 6) An example of how to do a drop-cap might be nice.

The "economist" example isn't sufficient?

Thanks for your comments,


Hakon W Lie, W3C/INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, France
http://www.w3.org/People/howcome  howcome@w3.org

Follow-Ups: References: