- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:23:05 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 19:19 +1000 UTC, on 2007-08-08, Ben Boyle wrote:
> On 8/8/07, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote:
>>
>> At 00:05 +1000 UTC, on 2007-08-08, Ben Boyle wrote:
>>
>> > http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#sections
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > "nearest ancestor sectioning element" vs "nearest sectioning element"
>> > - I'd stick with the former for clarity, the "ancestor" part is
>> > fundamental.
>>
>> Can it occur that "nearest ancestor" != "parent"?
>
> I think so. You could have something like section > div > address
> perhaps, where the parent "div" is not a sectioning element.
Yeah, but I of course meant it within the boundaries of "sectioning elements"
;) Sorry if that was unclear. So what I'm say is that, if the defining phrase
already contains "sectioning elements", then that excludes all non-sectioning
elements. So I'masking if, given that, it is really necessary to speak of
"nearest ancestor sectioning element", or that "parent sectioning element"
would cover the same. ("Parent" is likely to be understood by more people
than "nearest ancestor".)
--
Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 13:24:31 UTC