- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 08:42:22 -0700
- To: Tavmjong Bah <tavmjong@free.fr>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "www-svg@w3.org list" <www-svg@w3.org>
I made an experimental change to CSS Transforms to try the HTML/DOM/WHAT WG style for element names: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-transforms/#svg-user-coordinate-space Only difference between WHAT WG and W3C: the element names have 16px on WHAT WG and 13px on W3C. I prefer the bigger font-size, but you can check yourself by changing the font size in Web Inspector or other developer tools of your choice. See in comparison to brackets style: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/tip/masking/index.html#ClipPathElement On Apr 6, 2013, at 3:29 AM, Tavmjong Bah <tavmjong@free.fr> wrote: > On Fri, 2013-04-05 at 08:15 -0700, Dirk Schulze wrote: >> I did an experimental change of the element name styling for CSS Masking. See: >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/default/masking/index.html#MaskElement >> >> Please comment what you think about the change. >> > > I like the angles brackets but do see the potential for confusion with > grammar symbols. To address Cameron's concern of "heavyness", > underlining just the name and not the brackets might help, It is actually more disturbing. > maybe even > keeping the brackets black and unbolded. That makes them look similar to the grammar symbols. > > It seems that there is an inconsistency with extending the underline > under single quotes. It is done some places (attributes?) but not others > (properties?). I prefer it not to extend under the single quotes, less > heavy. > > Please, no orange. In fact Cameron is right, this is how the rest of the W3C world does it. The benefit is that readers can easily switch between specifications and know that they do not need to change habits. Greetings, Dirk
Received on Saturday, 6 April 2013 15:42:51 UTC