W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2013

[css-shapes] review comments

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:23:18 -0700
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EC2BCEF7-1B08-4152-9EC4-6BC67757C333@adobe.com>

Just a few smaller comments and snippets.

Typo: "Units Module Level 3 [[!CSS3VAL]." one bracket is missing.

"Definitions": We discussed this on CSS Transforms and CSS Masking reviews and come up with the term "Terminology" instead. Might be nice to have consistency across CSS specs.

"If a user agent implements both CSS Shapes and CSS Exclusions" informative reference to CSS Exclusions missing.

"represents xi and yi" Maybe use <sub>i</sub> for "i"?

"Polygons with less than three vertices (or with three or more vertices arranged to enclose no area) result in an empty float area" Since this section going to be referenced by other specs (such as CSS Masking ;)), can we use a global term "shape area" and each specification (including CSS Shapes) need to say what this area means? For CSS shapes "shape area" is the same as "floating area" for CSS Masking, "shape area" is the same as the "clipping area" and so on. I could override the term in masking as well. I guess it is a matter of opinion.

"Syntax of Basic Shapes" It is the grammar.

"For animated raster image formats (such as GIF), the first frame of the animation sequence is used." You can animate basic shapes and this will influence the float layout. Why not doing the same for animated images? Was that discussed before?

Finished review, no further comments :)

Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 06:23:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:02 UTC