- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:11:52 -0800
- To: Dennis Heuer <einz@verschwendbare-verweise.seinswende.de>, www-style@w3.org
On 01/15/2018 02:56 PM, Dennis Heuer wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:10:16 -0800 > fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > >> Replaced elements have a very specific technical meaning in CSS, >> and this paragraph is addressing those. It lists a number of >> examples to make sure that readers understand the full extent of >> its implications. Your rewrite is less precise, and therefore, >> not appropriate for the specification. You are welcome to write >> tutorials and articles about writing mode with less precision :) >> but we cannot afford to do so here. >> >> ~fantasai >> CSS Writing Modes specification editor >> > > I scanned the document. Only in the reference I found a link. Could > you please turn the respective terms in the document into links to the > below address: > > https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/conform.html#replaced-element OK, I have committed the change to link “replaced element” to the glossary. You can see the changes in the Editor's Draft; it will take awhile before the publication is updated on www.w3.org, however. > Still don't understand the neccessity for the px! Is too high for me! For the 300x150 example? It is just an example. :) There is a peculiar rule in CSS that if a replaced element does not have intrinsic dimensions, then we fall back to 300px * 150px. We list this example in the spec to make it clear that the dimensions of this fallback value do not flip when the writing mode is vertical. > Still find that the term might be understandable from a very internal > and bottom-up view. However, who is reading this term the first time > can not make any sense of it! Try to choose self-explanatory terms! We try, but this seems to have been the best we could come up with when the CSS2 specification was written. I think we'd be open to a change in terms if you have one that is significantly better. (That is, everyone agrees it is much better than the current term.) But it needs to be a term that encompasses all of the following: * images * videos * embedded documents (via <iframe>) * MathML * form controls * applets * (anything else that isn't constructed of CSS boxes and laid out with CSS) ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2018 20:12:22 UTC