Re: [css-shapes] review comments

On 9/30/13 11:23 PM, "Dirk Schulze" <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Just a few smaller comments and snippets.
>
>Typo: "Units Module Level 3 [[!CSS3VAL]." one bracket is missing.

Fixed

>
>"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.

OK, changed to 'terminology' in shapes, shapes-2 and exclusions.

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

Added

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

Changed. Isn't it great how this adds line-height?

>
>"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.

I've reworded to better indicate that 'float area' is a term that's only
relevant to this specification. I think we can just talk about a shape's
area (or lack of area) without having a specific term to use.

>
>"Syntax of Basic Shapes" It is the grammar.

I think either works. I was copying what I saw in CSS Color ("the syntax
of <named-hue> is"). Looking over the repo, there are 107 instances of
"the syntax of" but only 26 instances of "the grammar of". So I've left it
as syntax.

>
>"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?

It was discussed, and this was the working group's resolution. I think
that animating a basic shape will be much more prevalent than using an
animated image to provide a shape-outside.

>
>Finished review, no further comments :)

Thanks!

Alan

Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 21:24:22 UTC