[css3-page] comments on WD-css3-page-20061010

Hi,

  I read through http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-css3-page-20061010/ and
found the following:

Section 1:

I think this should come after "Introduction". Specifications should
always begin with the Introduction, not the references.

Section 2:

"Paged media (e.g., paper, transparencies, pages that are displayed on
computer screens, etc.)" -- the "etc." should be removed.

"CSS3 defines a page model" -- This should refer to "this document",
"this specification", "this module", or similar; the current reference
suggests this model is defined elsewhere, which is not the case.

"a physical sheet onto which the document is ultimately rendered (paper,
transparency, screen etc.)" -- the last part should be removed, it is
redundant with the earlier listing, and using "etc." is generally
editorially poor.

Section 3.1:

"This value is printer dependent" and "This value is printing device
dependent" are used to refer to the same concept. The same language
should be used to refer to this concept.

For "Content-empty Page" the first word should be capitalized.

Section 3.3.1:

I think the <page-size> definition would be more readable as a table.

Section 3.3.2:

The term "Portrait Orientation" occurs in all lower-case letters in
other sections of the document.

Section 3.3.3:

It's a bit odd to say the list is "in order", and then use a unordered
list.

Section 3.4.1:

This section lacks a normative reference for the definition of the
grammar that is being used here. I think it is a bad idea to mix
grammars as is done here. If EBNF would be used throughout this section,
the requirement

  The value 'auto' may not be used as a page name and MUST be treated as
  a syntax error.

would be unnecessary, it could be encoded in the grammar.

Section 3.4.2:

"Optionally, @page rules can have one pseudo-class (':first',':left', or
'right') and/or one named page." -- it seems this should be ":right"
with the colon. I think this sentence is poorly phrased and perhaps mis-
placed (it does not have anything to do with "cascading").

"The specificity of @page rules are " -- shouldn't this be "... is"?

I think the "concatenating numbers" idiom to express the specificity is
a very poor one, I would prefer to see this expressed as an array.

"and all other pages (i.e., the right pages)" -- I think the "i.e.," is
redundant here.

Section 3.5:

I am worried about the list of properties here, I think it is not very
precise, it is difficult to map this to CSS3 properties instead, and the
specification would have to be updated whenever new properties should
apply to the concepts defined herein.

"Values in units of 'em' and 'ex' refer to the page context's font. The
page context has a font associated with it either by an explicit use of
the 'font-family' and 'font-size' properties or from their initial
values." -- Is this true? Using the 'font' property, which seems
allowed, does not seem to qualify as "explicit use of the 'font-family'"
property.

"It is recommended that user agents with a non-printable area ..." --
this sounds like non-printable areas are a property of user agents,
which they are not.

Section 3.7:

I am concerned that the word 'may' here is not used with its RFC 2119
meaning, yet the styling indicates that it is.

The "should not" in this section is styled incorrectly.

Section 4.3:

"Note that, by their definitions, margins may be negative, but widths
may not." -- Here "may not" is styled as if it was a RFC 2119 term, even
though it is not. The other "may" also does not seem to be a RFC 2119
keyword, and the note seems misplaced. It would be better to turn this
into a non-normative note outside the list.

Section 5.5:

There appears to be a problem with the markup here.

Concerning multiple sections:

I think the use of "&nbsp; " is both inconsistent in the document and
poor form generally.

regards,
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Saturday, 14 October 2006 23:17:53 UTC