- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 10:17:39 -0700
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "www-svg@w3.org list" <www-svg@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > On 6/04/13 2:15 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote: >> >> I did an experimental change of the element name styling for CSS Masking. >> See: >> >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/default/masking/index.html#MaskElement >> >> Please comment what you think about the change. > > > I think the angle brackets have a couple of drawbacks. One is that they are > also used to indicate CSS grammar symbols (although there is a different in > the font weight, I'm not sure this is enough). This tends to be obvious from context, as well. > Second is that I feel the > angle brackets are too heavy, and distract from the flow of reading a > sentence. In our experience using <foo> notation in CSS specs, it doesn't seem to be heavy or distracting at all. > I assume you don't want to go with the SVG styling convention (still use ‘…’ > around the element name but use dark red as the text colour)? > > Another option would be to go with the styling used in HTML and other > Anolis-generated specs. That's something like <span style="font-family: > monospace; color: orange">…</span>. Though one thing I like about the CSS > styling is the use of the normal, proportionally spaced font -- monospaced > font in the middle of a sentence can also bit a bit jarring. Please no orange. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Monday, 8 April 2013 17:18:30 UTC