- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 14:08:09 +0200
- To: W3C CSS List <www-style@w3.org>
I think the specification should have a section that clarifies the terms SHOULD, MUST, etc. The rest of the comments I gave per section. I might have missed a few bits, I'll reread the draft when it becomes last call. * 1. Dependencies with other CSS 3 Modules Does it really depend on those modules? I think this section need to be revised. Probably on all CSS3 modules as the graph that was produced a few weeks ago doesn't seem to be correct. A specification that implements the CSS3 Background module does not need the 'rgba' color value for example. It would be nice, but it doesn't depend on it. * 2.1. Changes from CSS 2.1 There are new 'border' properties as well. 'box-shadow' wasn't in CSS 2.1 either. * 5. The 'background-image' property # An image that is empty (zero width or zero height), that fails to # download, or that otherwise cannot be displayed (e.g., because it is # not in a supported image format) has the same effect as a non-empty # transparent image. Wouldn't it be easier to specify that if an image can't be displayed the initial value should be used instead? # If 'background-repeat' or 'background-position' has more # comma-separated values than 'background-image', the series of values # is repeated as needed. As the editor's note already mentioned, it makes more sense for 'background-image' to determine the number of layer and let all the extra values specified be ignored. Actually, it might make even more sense to fall back to the initial value when one of the properties specifies a layer too much. For 'background-image' that would be 'none' if either 'background-repeat' or 'background-position' has more comma-separated values. # Editor's Note: Conformance properties for an image should be # addressed here: MIME type image/*, require support for PNG, refer to # profiles… I don't think it is up to the CSS WG to require support for images. * 6. The 'background-repeat' property # Should there also be values of "repeat-up", "repeat-down", # "repeat-right", and "repeat-left" for this property? What exactly would these values do? I think it might be wise to specify how 'space' should work. I am aware of a large discussion how 'letter-spacing' should be implemented exactly and it would be nice if this module would specify in more detail how it should work. (Personally I think the space at the edge should be halve the space that is between the images.) * 8. The 'background-position' property It would be nice to have a way to position a background from somewhere else than '0 0' (top left). Using the 'calc()' proposal to express what I mean: background-position:calc(100%-5px) calc(100%-5px); ... it would be very nice if that was made possible. Perhaps using '-5px -5px' or so. Or, to determinate the canvas in which the 'background-image' is drawn. Such a possibility would also remove the need for the editor's note in section 9 and probably remove the need for section 10. * 11. The 'background-size' property I'm not sure if this is useful at all. I don't see that a stretched -- it is a better name, indeed -- image could work out nice and I expect authors to not take advantages of the possiblities. This also introduces complexity for UAs and all kinds of rounding issues/errors. I suggest marking this as a feature at risk if it is desired by the WG to keep it. * 16. The 'border-style' properties I think this should specify that UAs are allowed to fallback to 'solid' if they don't have an appropriate implementation for the specified values. I think this might be useful for UAs implementating 'border-radius'. * 18. The 'border-image' property Again, this makes me wonder how UAs are going to do this "correctly". The idea is quite nice, although it seems strange that a 'border' property sets the background image... * 23. The background of the canvas I think the specification should not give any recommendations anymore to authors. Most UAs have implemented support for 'background' on the root element. (Even Internet Explorer, be it just for 'background-color'.) I also think it should say XHTML/XML or just XML. * 26. Tests How can a basic test suite guarentee interoparable implementations? Test suites have to be detailed. I'd argue tests are more important than the specification. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Saturday, 9 April 2005 12:07:55 UTC