- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:48:00 -0500
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Yuvalik Webdesign <postmaster at yuvalik.org> wrote: >> From: Ian Hickson >> > >> > Anyway, Perhaps this will do? >> > >> > "If a transparent element were to be removed but its descendants were >> > kept as they are, the content should remain conformant." >> > >> > Or: >> > >> > "Any transparent content should be conformant as if its transparent >> > containing element did not exist." >> >> Unfortunately both of these can be interpreted as saying that the >> element >> and all its children disappear -- "kept as they are" implies kept as >> children of the element; "[parent] element did not exist" implies the >> kids >> aren't in the tree, etc. >> >> >> > But again, perhaps the added example makes things clear enough. Just >> > trying to help. >> >> Your help is much appreciated. I'm glad the example helps. >> > > I'll give it one more go. ;-) > > Perhaps you could leave the existing sentence, but add: > > "In short; a transparent element must have the same content model as its parent." > > Or something to that effect? That's still not accurate, though. ^_^ I mean, it's *correct*, but it's not a summarization of the existing sentence (which is implied by "in short"). Ian pointed out how a transparent element can have children that would match the content model of the parent, but that wouldn't be correct if simply inserted into the parent (the example with <unique>). ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 06:48:00 UTC