Re: [css-writing-modes] Can't analyze a passage and find it redundantly technical

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 12:11:52 -0800
fantasai <> wrote:

> On 01/15/2018 02:56 PM, Dennis Heuer wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:10:16 -0800
> > fantasai <> 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:
> > 
> >
> 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, 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.

Why you never get the point? It's not about this or that value. It's
about why these values at all? They are just confusing readers, making
the spec complicated. "Box won't flip" is enough...

> > 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

As far is I understand, the term expresses that some element definition
gets replaced with some external box or content. One coild call this
the embedded element/source/content, the inlay element, the foreign
element/content box. I don't find this tricky...

Dennis Heuer

Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2018 23:24:33 UTC