> A few other things I've noted in the draft, some of which are essentially
> typos...
> 2) I still feel the requirement of indicating to the reader which
> stylesheets are in effect and allowing individual control of them is out of
> place as a conformance requirement. It adds unnecessary complexity to the
> UI when the main goal can be accomplished in an application-specific way
> (e.g., "Ignore stylesheets" toggle and accessibility stylesheets).
I agree that this is a user interface issue that may be handled
differently by different UAs. The motivation for having that
requirement is to preserve the user's right to apply a personal style
sheet. Would you have a suggestion for an acceptable wording?
> 1) Anchor pseudo-classes: The ":link" pseudo-class seems redundant. Isn't
> this just the default behaviour for <A>? The only use I could see is for
No, target anchors are also A elements, but should not be rendered as
links. Explanation added.
> 3) The vertical-align description makes reference to the <C> tag - this
> should be changed to <SPAN>.
Yes.
> 4) Vertical-align: 'text-top' is described as "align with the top of the
> parent element's font". Align WHAT with the top of the parent element's
Good point, fixed..
> 5) It is stated that pseudo-classing a selector that already uses a class,
> e.g.:
> H.foo:first-letter { vertical-align: top; font-size: 300%; float: left }
> is allowed, but the order of the class and pseudo-class is not. Is any
> order allowed, or only element.class:pseudoclass? This should be explicitly
> stated.
It was in the formal grammar, but it will be better explained in the
text version of the spec.
> 6) An example of how to do a drop-cap might be nice.
The "economist" example isn't sufficient?
Thanks for your comments,
-h&kon
Hakon W Lie, W3C/INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis, France
http://www.w3.org/People/howcome howcome@w3.org