Re: [css2] Fonts section comments

Jens Meiert wrote:
> once again some feedback on a CSS document:
> * Inconsistency in 15.2.3 [1]: In the "font-variant" example, "EM" should be
> "H3 EM", as I understand it;

 From the spec:
| The following example results in an H3 element in small-caps, with
| emphasized words (EM) in oblique small-caps:
| H3 { font-variant: small-caps }
| EM { font-style: oblique }

    It's a matter of opinion. The CSS in question would produce the 
result stated in the sentence. It would also make <em> elements outside 
an <h3> be oblique, so it might not be a good idea, but there's nothing 
inconsistent about it. In fact, it's consistent in making all the <em> 
elements oblique. ;)

> * Typo in 15.2.3: "from narrowest to widest :" (colon position; AFAIK);

    Probably shouldn't be a space there, but I get the feeling it was 
put there because the author felt the colon was to close to the letter 
with this specific font. It's much easier to see the space in another font.

> * Typo in 15.2.5 [2]: "Helvetica Nue";

    I see both "Helvetica Nue" and "Helvetica(TM) Neue" being used on 
various web pages. It's difficult to say what the correct spelling is. 
Perhaps there is a difference of opinion among font vendors...

> * Typo in 15.3 [3]: "(Note that the metrics might not match exactly)."
> (period position, AFAIK);

    You're correct, in other places they use ".)" instead of ").". At 
the very least, they should be consistent about it.

> Due to the rare response on bug reports and typo hints (as in [4]), I ask
> the Working Group for an official statement if these are desired at all.
> It's frustrating to find errors in almost every document, but seeing no
> interest on the part of the W3C that these get fixed.

    Don't take it personally.  These people have day jobs and travel a 
lot. They can't always keep up with the mailing list.

Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 13:50:48 UTC