Re: [compositing-1] Normative section

Thanks for the review Tav.
I applied your comments and posted a new ED:
http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/compositing-1/



On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Tavmjong Bah <tavmjong@free.fr> wrote:

> On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 14:54 -0800, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> > During last week's call [1] David Baron mentioned that the compositing
> > and blending specification didn't declare the mathematical operations
> > as normative.
> > I went back over when I made this change but couldn't retrace why this
> > was done (or who told me to do so).
> >
> >
> > I agree with David that this should be declared normative and made
> > changes to the editor's draft so those section are now normative [2].
> > I also updated those sections to clarify what are notes, examples and
> > required/normative behavior.
> >
> >
> > Does anyone disagree with this change?
> > If not, I would like to ask for another Last Call on the next SVG and
> > CSS telecon with a duration of 4 weeks.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> > In addition, I also
> > - removed the paragraph on knockout (per Simon Fraser's request)
> > - removed the section on clip-to-self and references to it (per James
> > Robinson's and roc's request)
> > - clarified section on SVG compositing and ordering of examples and
> > figures (per Tav's request)
>
> Examples numbering still skips numbers in Firefox (but not Chrome).
> 'class=example' occurs both on <div>s and the <img>s inside which
> appears to mess up the auto-counting.
>
>
> Minor editing quibbles:
>
> Abstract:
> Add period after: * compositing groups.
>
> 3.4:
> <blend-mode> = .... should be broken into two lines so it doesn't run
> off-screen.
>
> Third example:
> ... element is causing ... ->
> ... element causes ...
>
> 3.4.2:
> In CSS, a background ... ->
> A CSS background image or the content of an <img> must...
> [<img> is HTML, not CSS]
>
> Question: what about <iframe>, <object>, <embed>?
>

Those elements must not caused isolation.
Note that this paragraph is marked "at-risk" since current implementations
don't seem to cause isolation.


>
> 3.4.3:
> Subject/verb agreement:
>
> ... blend with the element's background layer that is below it ...   OR
> ... blend with the element's background layers that are below it ...
>
> the element instead -> the element, instead
>
> 5. Note:
> Shape either exists at a particular point or it does not. ->
> A particular point is either inside the shape or it is not.
>
> The note should be divided into two paragraphs; one for shape, one for
> opacity.
>
> 10: Blending, example caption:
>
> Note ... lowers. ->
> Note how the rectangle is redder where the opacity of the background is
> smaller.
>
> General:
>
> I find the use of <br> in the middle of a <p> makes the spec more
> difficult to read; for example, in 3.4.2 between the first and second
> sentence. They should be removed or replaced by <p> depending on how
> closely the material before and after is related.
>

I agree. I went over the spec and tried to clean this up