- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:16:10 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 09/14/2012 04:56 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: > On 09/14/2012 04:43 PM, fantasai wrote: >> On 09/14/2012 03:40 PM, Daniel Holbert wrote: >>>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Two nits: >>> >>> (a) s/flex ratios/flex factors/ at the end there. >>> >>> (b) It's unclear what "such lengths" refers to, in the second sentence. >>> It suggests that it's referring to something in the first sentence, but >>> the first sentence doesn't mention lengths at all -- just factors. >>> Maybe replace "such lengths" with "zero-<length> <flex-basis> values", >>> or something? >> >> Ok, fixed: >> >> # A unitless zero that is not already preceded by two flex factors must >> # be interpreted as a flex factor. To avoid misinterpretation or invalid >> # declarations, authors must specify a zero<flex-basis> component with >> # a unit or precede it by both flex ratios. > > Still needs part "(a)" that I mentioned (ratios --> factors), but > otherwise looks good to me! Ah, right! > (Speaking of which -- the ED still has a lot of instances of "ratio" > that want to be "factor" now (aside from "flex shrink ratio" in section > 9.7 where it has a specific non-'factor' meaning)) Good catch. Should be fixed now. ~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 15 September 2012 02:16:39 UTC