Re: CSS shorthand reference

On 6 Dec 2011, at 18:24, Alexander Futekov wrote:

> Yay for the oxford comma :)
> 
> Both the advanced selectors and shorthand articles are very nice and concise, very easy and quick to read, which is the point.
> 
> Concerning the shorthand article:
> - the background-attachment is missing from the background shorthand property, if I'm not mistaken it's the last slot (after the positioning) and is either fixed or scroll

ah ha! thanks for spotting that - I've added it.

> - I am not certain about that, but would a small note about gradients benefit novice users that have seen gradients only in the context of the shorthad? I am talking about few words that explain that gradients are the same as background-image and take the same position in the shorthand

Added - see the end of Masataka's CSS3 section.

> - the last sentence in the section on color is rather peculiar :)
> 

I think it looks ok.

> 
> Alexander Futekov
> 
> 
> On 6 December 2011 16:10, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com> wrote:
> 
> On 6 Dec 2011, at 13:32, Richard D. Worth wrote:
> 
> > Looking good. I fixed a few minor typos, added some oxford commas, made the indentation in code samples consistent, and made the headings consistent (some had 'shorthand' others did not, I opted for not).
> 
> Cheers Richard.
> 
> I've filled in the blanks now.
> 
> >
> > Wasn't sure how to fix wording on "rarely want to go this granular, for will probably use simply"
> 
> ah yes, that was a bit horrible. Fixed it ;-)
> 
> >
> > Also, can we standardize on spelling it "color" instead of "colour" as it's consistent with the property in the specs?
> 
> yes. and serial commas ;-)
> 
> I have added points about these to the style guide.
>