W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > October 2006

Re: [XBL] Editorial: xblSetInsertionPoint()

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 01:34:41 +0000 (UTC)
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0610070020120.19875@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> Let's have a look:
>   xblSetInsertionPoint 
>     The xblSetInsertionPoint method must check that the given node is
>     a child of the same bound element as the shadow tree is itself
>     associated with, and, if it is, must check that the node matches
>     this content element, and, if it does, must assign the node to this
>     content element instead of whatever previous content element it was
>     assigned to.
> This is complete gibberish

It really isn't gibberish, though I understand that it is not easy to 
read, and in fact uses a grammatical idiom that may be strange to 
non-native English readers, for which I apologise.

> I cannot even parse "the same bound element as the shadow tree is itself 
> associated with"

The construct "the same foo as bar is bazzed with" is another way of 
saying "The bar is bazzed with a foo. That foo is the same foo as the one 
that was being referred to earlier".

I've rewritten that section (and a bunch of other stuff related to 
<content> elements) to try to help matters a bit. Let me know what else I 
can do.

> That aside, I approached the problem as follows:
>   1. the name suggests the method sets an insertion point, so I
>      searched the document for the definition of this term. It
>      seems there is none.

It's not a technical term, it's exactly what it sounds like -- a point at 
which something is inserted. I've removed mention of that term even 
further now since it seems to cause so much confusion.

>      Amazed how it would make sense to anyone to define the
>      processing of an element way outside the introduction
>      of the element

I maintain that it's ridiculous to _not_ do this as it currently stands. 
The creation of a shadow tree and the distribiution of explicit children 
involves much more than just the <content> element, so it can't just be 
described at that location.

I've gone through and made the element descriptions notes to emphasise 
this, and moved the shadow tree stuff around.

I've also tried to fix some of the other problems you raised, e.g. the 
well-formedness errors.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 7 October 2006 01:34:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:56:16 UTC