[compositing] More feedback on property definitions


Can the 'mix' property syntax get simplified more from:

	<mixarea> = <area>? && <blendmode>? && <composite>? && <isolation’>? && <knock-out’>?


	<mixarea> = <area> || <blendmode> || <composite> || <isolation> || <knock-out>


There are some typos

And mistakes:
	<blendarea> = <area>? && <blendmode> on 'mix-blend-mode', but both are listed in the 'mix' property syntax (<area> should be removed there).
	<isolate> and <knock-out> are not specified (should be done on the longhand properties).
	‘knock-out' property syntax should change from: preserve | knock-out to <knock-out>#
	'isolate' property syntax should change from: auto | isolate to <isolation>#
	Value keywords on 'isolate' and 'knock-out' property are not in quotes, the value in Initial is, should be consistent (think it is usually not in quotes in definition tables).
	"In SVG, only ‘element’ is supported." This distinction can not be done on parsing CSS. So it should say that for SVG 'element' is used independent of the author specified value.
	"In SVG, it applies to all container elements except ‘mask’" this is a repeating pattern. Looking at the definition of 'container element' (‘a’, ‘defs’, ‘glyph’, ‘g’, ‘marker’, ‘mask’, ‘missing-glyph’, ‘pattern’, ‘svg’, ‘switch’ and ‘symbol’.), there seems to be more elements where it does not make sense.

Question (snippets):
	Does the blend mode value description stay <blendmode>, or should it be <blend-mode>? The same question for a bunch of other value definitions. IIRC other CSS specifications use a dash (<blend-mode>, <mix-area>, <knock-out>,...).
	Should <composite> be <composite-mode> for consistency, or <alpha-compositing>?


Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 16:37:34 UTC