W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > October to December 2000

XSL CR WD Comments - Sections 4.1 through 4.2.5

From: Glenn Adams <gadams@vgi.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:47:35 -0500
Message-ID: <001b01c04a85$e85d7a80$26020001@vgi.com>
To: "XSL Editors" <xsl-editors@w3.org>
1. 4.1, second note, has redundant "NOTE: " before "traits are also ...".

2. 4.1, para 5 (not counting notes as paras), suggest removing "areas on" from
"its glyphs distributed into areas on two separate line-areas".

3. 4.1, next to last para, what is meaning of "values" in "one or more values
constructed by the formatter" and what is meaning of "calculation formula"?

4. 4.2.1, para 2, should glyph areas be permitted to have sub-areas to
accommodate diacritics and other complex construction of glyph shapes from
multiple sub-glyph shapes?

5. 4.2.2, para 4, talks about viewport/reference pair where start and end edges
of content rectangles align. I read this as handling scrolling in block
progression direction. How about scrolling in inline progression direction?

6. 4.2.2, para 5, has "Each element has the traits ..." which should read "area"
instead of "element".

7. 4.2.2, last bullet after "Other traits include", has "character descendants
of the area"; shouldn't this read "glyph" instead of "character"?

8. 4.2.2, last para, has "traits of a formatting object"; shouldn't this read
"properties of ...".

9. 4.2.3, para 1, suggest adding example showing when marks may appear outside
the content rectangle.

10. 4.2.5, para 4, uses "space-specifiers", which hasn't been defined yet.

11. 4.2.5, para 4, sub-item (1) and (2) discuss space-before and space-after,
which haven't been defined yet.

12. 4.2.5, note after figure "Adjacent Edges with Block-stacking", remove "in
two places" due to redundancy.

13. 4.2.5 second para after figure "Block-Stacking Constraint Example", which
starts with "Inline-stacking Constraints." should have this prefix as a new
heading for an un-numbered sub-section. Same for "Block-stacking Constraints" at
start of 4.2.5 which should be a new heading.

14. 4.2.5, the use of before and after in "fence-before" and "fence-after" does
not align with the general uses of before and after in the remainder of the
document meaning edges perpendicular to the block progression direction. In the
present context, "before" and "after" are used as "start" and "end" are used
elsewhere in the document.

15. 4.2.5, para 3 (starting "If P is a block-area, ...") and second para under
"Inline stacking constraints" (starting "If P and Q have an inline-stacking
constraint ...", I would recommend a close comparison of the forms of these two
paragraphs and that they be written in the same form, mutatis mutandis.

16. 4.2.5, example 3b above "Adjacent Edges with Inline-Stacking 2", seems to
have the label "A" pointing at the wrong area.

Received on Thursday, 9 November 2000 14:47:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:44:21 UTC