- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 03:12:33 +0000
- To: public-fxtf-archive@w3.org
fantasai has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts: == [motion] Editorial Comments == - [ ] Needs an overview that ties together all the properties into a coherent mental model, that the reader can keep in mind while learning about each part in more depth, perhaps at the beginning of Chapter 4. Something like > The Motion Path module allows specifying the position of a box as the distance (`offset-distance`) of the box's anchor point (`offset-anchor`) along a geometrical path (`offset-path`) defined against the coordinates of its containing block. The box's orientation can optionally be specified as a rotation with respect to the direction of the path at that point. - [ ] Audit all instances of "element" to make sure it is correctly using the term "box" and/or "containing block" (or an equivalent term that encompasses the SVG model). "element" and "containing element" are not correct terms to use for layout specs, only for DOM specs, css-cascade, and other things that actually talk about the element tree. See https://www.w3.org/TR/css-display-3/#intro - [ ] In the definition of `<angle>` paths, group the various parameters under a single entry for `ray( <angle> && <size>? && contain?)`. You can then have sub-entries for each parameter. Right now the parameters are at the same level as e.g. `<basic-shape>`, which isn't right. - [ ] You use the term "path" with a very specific definition: the path being, specifically, the path specified by the `offset-path` property and used for positioning the box under the system described in this module. But the term "path" is very generic and has many meanings throughout CSS and SVG. I recommend using a more specific term, that has this specific meaning, and use that consistently throughout. This will make the spec much tighter in its definitions, without relying solely on hyperlink formatting. Same issue with "distance". - [ ] On a related note, "anchor point" should be a defined term. - [ ] Given that the "computed distance" in the Offset Processing section is not the computed value of any property, I think you should use a different term here. Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/72 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2016 03:12:41 UTC