Jim,
Thanks for all your hard work on CSS Print and XHTML-Print. I think they
look great...hopefully W3C will agree.
Here are some comments. Have fun in New Orleans.
E.
CSS-Print
-------------
1. Section 7. I don't understand bullets 4 and 5. I thought the point of
the media sheets is to separate out what a printer should and should not
look at. Shouldn't it explicitly ignore media other than unlabeled, "all"
and "print"?
2. Section 7, last paragraph. I'm not clear what CSS statement this
refers to.
3. Section 8.4.1, bullet 9. This seems inconsistent with the fact that
the font-variant property is not required.
4. Section 8.4.1, bullet 10. What is the reason for this?
5. Section 8.4.2. What is the relationship of this material to the
previous section? It looks like a partial duplication. If there are
differences between basic and enhanced maybe they should be listed as such.
Typos:
-In "Status of this document": "has not be" s/b "has not been"
-S. 2.1: missing period at the end
-S. 8.4.1, bullet 5: extra space after "var"
-S. 8.4.1: "depends of the above" s/b "on"
XHTML-Print
-----------------
1. Some sections are labeled as to normative vs. informative, but some are
not. Should they all be?
2. Section 1.3.1. I agree with the yellow-text suggestion to remove the
sentence "A generic event handling...".
3. Section 1.3.2. The term "class" as used here caused me some confusion.
You don't mean a CSS class; maybe say "classification" as it is used
earlier in the sentence. Or "type" or "industry category" or ...
4. Section 1.3.3. There is no user input. How about a summary here of
the material in section 4.5.
5. Section 2.1. Since PWG is a real organization and xhtml-print.org is
just a URL, probably PWG is a better name for the doctype. (but not a big
deal)
6. Section 2.3.1, bullet 10. Would it be better to move this text to the
general discussion of whitespace that follows? (The division of material
is confusing.) Also, we should describe the total processing of the
language, but not the XML processor, as that is part of an implementation.
The key is that several different end-of-line sequences are equivalent, as
defined in XML.
7. Section 4.2. This refers to a discussion of e.g. & and < in style
sheets, which I could not find.
8. Section 4.5. I think this material should be marked informative.
Typos:
-In "Status of this document": "has not be" s/b "has not been"
-In my copy, deleted text is missing. Is that right? (The "review
conventions" suggest it should be visible.)
-S. 2.4: "Enhance Layout" s/b "Enhanced"
-S. 3.1, first paragraph: perhaps a comma after "XML"?
-S. 3.8: "so that is may" s/b "it"
-S 3.14: missing period at the end
-S 4.5: first sentence is awkward
-S 4.5 Step 1: "He is an example" s/b "Here"
------------------------------------------
Elliott Bradshaw
Director, Software Engineering
Oak Technology Imaging Group
781 638-7534
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 15:50:22 EST