Re: [css-break] editorial things

On 01/15/2014 04:41 PM, Peter Moulder wrote:
> I haven't followed closely the css-foo vs cssN-foo discussion, but consider
> mentioning the spelling ‘css-break’ in the Status section.
>
>
> "assumend" -> assumed.  (Though maybe you already have spelling check as part
> of your publishing checklist.)
>
>
> §2 ‘Fragmentation Model and Terminology’, "fragmentation container" definition wording:
>
>    i) "instead of overlowing it" is slightly "garden path"-ish; and ii) "when it
>    overflows it doesn't overflow" seems like it could be improved.
>
>    How about "when ... would overflow ..., it prefers instead to ...".
>
>    "Would overflow" isn't very well defined, but I think it's OK in this
>    context where we're just trying to define a fragmentation container.
>
>    The "prefers" part is to cover the case where there's no suitable
>    break opportunity (in which case it still overflows).

Fixed, thanks!

~fantasai