Re: CSS properties

I would (and have) put these (non general) comments in the "Compatibility
notes" section.
I am in favor of documenting anything that may help the user, including
browser issues. Of course, this information must also be kept up to date
(so if a certain browser version fixes an issue, the range of affected
versions should be noted).


☆*PhistucK*


On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:16 AM, David R. Herz <WPD@theherzes.com> wrote:

> I have some questions and comments:****
>
> ** **
>
> Where is it most useful for me to make certain content specific comments?*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> It appears that certain browsers have browser specific coding (-o, -moz,
> -webkit).  I am clear that these are therefore not standard, but some
> mention of variants, where they apply, and how to use them might be
> appropriate.  I only got this because I had access to Mr. Mills – I am sure
> he is not the only keeper of this information – but it might help the
> budding developer if there were some readily accessible explanation of the
> compatibility tables and what they mean.   The little –o in a red box does
> not give enough information.  If it were a link that indicated how to use
> it (likewise for -webkit or –moz), or if there were a link with the table
> to a guide to these table designations, it would be useful.****
>
> ** **
>
> This is more about measurement than length, but do we (or should we)
> address situations in which our designations seem to be ignored?  I have a
> border-image that renders as I think I coded it in Chrome and Firefox.  The
> –o version seems to ignore my border image width designation.   I don’t
> know if this is an Opera bug or something that can or should be addressed
> here.****
>
> ** **
>
> Also, since Internet Explorer has no support for border-image, it would be
> useful in a usage guide to indicate how a border would be accomplished for
> that browser.****
>
> ** **
>
> David R. Herz****
>
> wpd@theherzes.com <mr@theherzes.com>****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Julee Burdekin [mailto:jburdeki@adobe.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:50 PM
> *To:* Mike Sierra; Lea Verou
> *Cc:* PhistucK; WebPlatform Community
> *Subject:* Re: Values of CSS properties****
>
> ** **
>
> +1 But I don't think we have such a page... J****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ----------------------------****
>
> julee@adobe.com****
>
> @adobejulee****
>
> ** **
>
> *From: *Mike Sierra <letmespellitoutforyou@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:47 PM
> *To: *Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
> *Cc: *PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com>, julee <jburdeki@adobe.com>,
> WebPlatform Public List <public-webplatform@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Values of CSS properties****
>
> ** **
>
> I prefer <length> with a link to the length page and maybe a brief note
> about percentages and keywords, but separate lines for 2, 4, and 1-line
> syntax.   Perhaps "accepts multiple values" should be a flag in the
> overview table, with a link to discussion of comma-separated syntax?****
>
> ** **
>
> --Mike S****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote:****
>
> Isn’t that the purpose of the examples section?****
>
> ** **
>
> Lea Verou****
>
> W3C developer relations****
>
> http://w3.org/people/all#lea ? http://lea.verou.me ? @leaverou****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 23:39, PhistucK <phistuck@gmail.com> wrote:****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> While I understand what <length> means exactly, I am not sure everyone
> does. In order to be correct and accurate, as well as usable for newcomers,
> I think we should have <length> as well as one or two quick and short
> examples to make the newcomers figure out the usage easily and quickly.***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> So, say -****
>
> background-position: <length> <length>;****
>
>   background-position: 20px 30px;****
>
>   background-position: 15em 5%;****
>
> ** **
>
> Or something similar.****
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ☆*PhistucK*****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote:****
>
> Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. Glad we agree. Anyone else want to
> chime in?****
>
>
> Lea Verou
> W3C developer relations****
>
> http://w3.org/people/all#lea ? http://lea.verou.me ? @leaverou****
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 25, 2013, at 23:31, Julee Burdekin <jburdeki@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Lea: Are you talking about where it lists the values:
> >
> > Values
> >
> > 20px 40px
> >     Any standard CSS...
> >
> > Yes, I agree: <length> is better than some arbitrary example value.
> >
> > J
> >
> > ----------------------------
> > julee@adobe.com
> > @adobejulee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From:  Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
> > Date:  Thursday, July 25, 2013 1:25 PM
> > To:  WebPlatform Public List <public-webplatform@w3.org>
> > Subject:  Values of CSS properties
> >
> >
> > I see this pattern in many CSS properties. For example,
> > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/css/properties/background-positionSome
> > have generic data types as values (e.g. length), others try to use
> > specific examples.
> > What’s the correct way?
> > Personally, I think specific examples can be confusing, since the reader
> > needs to extrapolate the general rule.
> >
> > Lea Verou
> > W3C developer relations
> > http://w3.org/people/all#lea ? http://lea.verou.me ? @leaverou
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>