- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:37:48 -0800
- To: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 01/24/2012 11:57 AM, Vincent Hardy wrote: > >> 2. CSS regions concepts >> ----------------------- >> >> I think section could use some editorial work. I don't have specific >> suggestions, but I do think it could use some reorganization. > > [vh] If you do not have suggestions, could you describe what issues you see? > That will help me understand and see how to improve it. Hard to say. Just seemed somewhat disorganized, broken up into many small sections that are not parallel-ly constructed. >> Also, definitions sections are generally normative, not non-normative. > > [vh] ok. I thought that normative text had to be made of testable assertions. > Some of the text, like the definition of a region, is not testable. So I > guess I was working with the wrong assumption? Yeah, not testable != non-normative. If you remove the non-normative parts of a spec, you should get the same spec, just harder to understand. :) If you remove the definitions upon which your conformance requirements are based, presumably the conformance requirements don't make much sense... You might find this useful: http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1140242962&count=1 ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 01:38:27 UTC