[css-break] editorial things

• From: Peter Moulder <pjrm@mail.internode.on.net>
• Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 08:41:04 +1100
• To: www-style@w3.org
• Message-ID: <20140115214104.GA15476@mail.internode.on.net>

I haven't followed closely the css-foo vs cssN-foo discussion, but consider
mentioning the spelling ‘css-break’ in the Status section.


"assumend" -> assumed.  (Though maybe you already have spelling check as part
of your publishing checklist.)


§2 ‘Fragmentation Model and Terminology’, "fragmentation container" definition wording:

  i) "instead of overlowing it" is slightly "garden path"-ish; and ii) "when it
  overflows it doesn't overflow" seems like it could be improved.

  How about "when ... would overflow ..., it prefers instead to ...".

  "Would overflow" isn't very well defined, but I think it's OK in this
  context where we're just trying to define a fragmentation container.

  The "prefers" part is to cover the case where there's no suitable
  break opportunity (in which case it still overflows).


pjrm.

Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 21:41:25 UTC