[mediaqueries] Editorial

1. Note in the range syntax that it is new to L4, and thus less widely-supported
    than the min-/max- prefixed syntax.

2. This sentence is weird:
  # In addition to conforming to the syntax, each media query needs to use media
  # types and media features according to their respective specification in order
  # to be considered conforming.
If you're trying to say that such a syntax would be invalid, maybe

3. Start a new section "Evaluating Media Queries" or somesuch, starting here:
  # Each of the major terms of <media-condition> or <media-condition-without-or>
  # is associated with a boolean result, as follows: (...)
Put this section after 3.1 Error Handling.

4. Use curly quotes instead of straight quotes in prose (not code).

5. "the style sheet is usable on printed output" -> s/usable/used/
    likewise for subsequent examples

6. “A specified <length> cannot be negative.” ->
    “Negative <length> values are invalid.”

7. We generally don't define types in the "Values" section in the introduction:
    that section is just saying where to find definitions for types not defined
    in this specification. (It is defining module interactions.) If you're
    defining a type in a spec, put it somewhere more appropriate to the main
    content of the spec.

8. “<resolution> does not refer to the number of device pixels per physical
    length unit, but the number of device pixels per css pixels.”

    a) s/css pixels/css unit/
    b) Move this note to the bottom of the section. It is not interesting
      to authors.

9. The example for 'inverted' has inconsistent indentation.

10. The table of pointer devices in the 'pointer' section should

    a) Move up to the top of the section, since it summarizes the information
       of all the subsections, not just this one.
    b) Use class="data" instead of using your own styling. You might also
       need to use 'scope' attributes on the row headings.

    Also,
    c) Put some examples inline into the definitions of each value.

11. “the 3 levels” s/3/three/g

Overall, this is a very readable spec, so good job!

~fantasai

Received on Saturday, 6 February 2016 01:38:34 UTC