W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: 3.8. Sections

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 00:10:00 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0708080710w604c8bf0hfc841c0dcaa6e994@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Sander Tekelenburg" <st@isoc.nl>, public-html@w3.org

I agree with Anne for once! "parent" is too tied to "parent element".
I don't mind "nearest ancestor" - I think that's standard terminology.
It's used in the XPath spec to describe how lang function works, we're
consistent with that at least :)


On 8/8/07, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:50:22 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote:
> >> That sounds confusing to me because it doesn't actually define the
> >> constraints you seem to be working with such that non-sectioning
> >> elements are to be ignored in usage of "parent".
> >
> > I can't follow. How does "parent sectioning element" leave room to think
> > it might apply to a non-sectioning parent element?
>
> Because it refers to the parent in a tree. And parent (same for ancestor)
> has a well defined meaning in a tree. So for a tree like:
>
>    <section>
>      <div>
>        <section>
>
> the idea that the "parent sectioning element" for the innermost <section>
> refers to the outermost <section> is non-obvious.
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
> <http://www.opera.com/>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 14:10:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC