- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:11:10 +0200
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Le 19/06/12 22:48, fantasai a écrit : > You could just work in the explanation I sent in > http://www.w3.org/mid/4FC64100.3060800@inkedblade.net > e.g. > | Each element in the top layer's stack has a ::backdrop pseudo-element, > | which can be styled to create a backdrop that hides the underlying > | document when the element is displayed fullscreen. > > I think that would address Daniel's comment. Yes. But please note I insist on this only because I think the current prose is absolutely not self-explanatory enough. > The CSSWG generally tries to explain the intention of a feature at a high > level rather than simply giving the processing model and asking > implementers > to blindly implement it. This helps spec reviewers understand the goal of > the feature and therefore comment intelligently on how it fulfills that > goal, and it helps implementers and authors create a mental context for > interpreting the rest of the spec text and applying it to real code. Again, yes. I am in particular thinking of implementors who will read this document w/o having followed the discussions here. I know our (W3C) specs are not meant for end-user consumption but it's not a reason to make them hard to understand even to implementors. That's also the reason why I asked to explain requestFullscreen(). It can sound obvious, but it's not. And in fact, we should _never_ introduce a new syntax, API, whatever w/o saying _what it does_ from a functional point of view before explaining how it works. </Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2012 21:11:46 UTC