[css-values] Re: CR: CSS Values and Units Module Level 3

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Notifier <notifier@aries.w3.org> wrote:
> CSS Values and Units Module Level 3
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/CR-css-values-3-20150611/\nnfeedback due by: 2015-09-09

> Status of the Document
> The specification will remain Candidate Recommendation at least until 09 September 2015. At the date of publication there is no explicit test suite (implicityl [sic], all CSS tests exercise this module in some way) and no implementation report.

> specified in the grammar are implicitly omittable [sic] in some circumstances,

omissible [1]

> For re-orderable combinators (||, &&), ordering of the grammar does not matter:

Google says:
Showing results for reorderable [2]
Search instead for re-orderable

note that yourdictionary is right, the base word is `reorder`, not `orderable`.

> In this case, a space would be required before the 2 to get this parsed as the two lengths '1em'and [sic] '2em'.

there's a space missing before `and`

> Identifiers cannot be quoted; otherwise they would be interpreted as a string.

a string => strings
(or An identifier/it)

> In the value definition fields, keywords with a pre-defined meaning appear literally.
> Keywords are CSS identifiers and are interpreted ASCII case-insensitively (i.e., \[a-z] and [A-Z] are equivalent).

\[a-z] and [A-Z] differ in two ways, depending what you are trying to
say, i'd suggest:
\[a-z], [a-z], and [A-Z] are equivalent (assuming that's what you mean...)

> RFC 3986, section 3, defines the normative algorithm for this process.
... why isn't this written like this:
> ... [RFC6694].

> The url() function supports specifying additional '<url-modifier>'s,...
... you don't consistently include quotes around this...
> This specification does not define any <url-modifier>s, ...

> vw 1% of viewport’s width
> vh 1% viewport’s height
missing `of`

> Equal to the used x-height of the first available font. [CSS3-FONTS] The x-height ...

I know there's a style that suggests putting stuff after punctuation,
please put []s after their reference and before the period ending the
sentence instead.

> Note: Note that if the anchor unit is the pixel unit,
> Note: Note that this definition of the pixel unit and
> Note: Note that due to the 1:96 fixed ratio
> Note: Note that algebraic simplifications
> Note: Note this requires all contexts
> Note: Note that toggle()
> Note: Note that the computed value
> Note: Note that, unlike <toggle-value>s,

I'm pretty sure more Note:s don't Note: Note than do. Personal Note:
Note Note: Note'ing is annoying.

> (This change was made because too much existing content relies on the assumption of 96dpi, and breaking that assumption breaks the content.)

breaks => broke

> Showing that more device pixels (dots) are needed to cover a 1px by 1px area on a high-resolution device than on a low-res one

Isn't the technical claim that it's `a medium viewed at a greater
distance` and not `a higher resolution device`?
If you're talking about the same viewing distance, you should say
so... But then, you're really just saying "if the size of a thing is
smaller than something else, then it takes more of that thing to fill
the same space as the thing w/ the larger base unit", which seems
pretty obvious and uninteresting.

Most of these units include periods, as here:
> s
> Seconds.

until here:
> dpi
> dots per inch
> dpcm
> dots per centimeter
> dppx
> dots per px unit
where you lost the periods...

> White space is allowed, ...
> If a comma is used to separate arguments, whitespace is optional before and after the comma.

I favor whitespace

> For example, calc(5px - 5px + 10s) or calc(0 * 5px + 10s) are both invalid due to the attempt to add a length and a time.

or => and

> These two are equivalent to 'width: 0px' since widths smaller than 0px are not allowed.
> width: calc(5px - 10px);
> width: 0px;

I think you can omit `to 'width: 0px'` - The two examples are
equivalent since ...

> The toggle() notation is not allowed to be nested; nor may it contain attr() or calc() notations.

According to Grammar Girl [3]:
or => nor may it contain

I think that sounds awkward, I'd probably go with:
...; and it may contain neither attr() nor calc() ...

> Note that, since 1px appears twice in the top and bottom margins, they will cycle between only two value while the left and right margins cycle through three.

`two value` sounds awkward, did you mean `two values`?

Ignoring the wording nit here, I don't understand how what it's saying
is correct. The initial introduction to toggle() didn't indicate to me
that:

toggle(1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8) would be the same as:
toggle(1, 2, 3, 5, 8)
or that
toggle(1, 2, 3, 1) would be the same as:
toggle(1, 2, 3)

> The attr() expression is only valid if:
> the attr() expression’s type is valid where the attr() expression is placed,
this item doesn't end with a comma:
> if the attribute name is given with a namespace prefix, the prefix is defined
> the <attr-fallback> is valid where the attr() expression is placed,
> the <attr-fallback> does not contain another attr() expression,
> and, if the attr() expression is not the sole component value of a property, the <attr-fallback> matches the attr()’s type

i think rewording it to `there is no namespace prefix for the
attribute name or the namespace prefix for the attribute name is
defined,` would be the easiest fix.

> If the attr() is used alongside other values to form the full property value, however, the default value must match the attr()'s type.

ParseError: `expected then while parsing if`

Moving `however` to the beginning of the sentence allows my parser to
read an implied `then` before `the default`

> an attribute whose value is "\33" will produce a string containing those three characters, not a string containing "3" (the character that the escape would evaluate to).

Using an example with 3 threes is confusing, it'd be easier on my poor
parser if the first number after the slash wasn't the same thing as
the character that would be evaluated. (In other languages, backslash
of something uninteresting is the thing itself.) -- "\67" might work
assuming I'm understanding what this is doing.

> INVALID EXAMPLE26

There's a space missing before 26

[1] https://www.englishforums.com/English/IsOmitableOmittableAcceptableWord/zkwzm/post.htm
[2] http://www.yourdictionary.com/reorderable
[3] http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/when-use-nor

Received on Friday, 3 July 2015 15:20:40 UTC