- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:45:56 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@enst.fr>
- Cc: "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Cyril Concolato wrote: > > I understand that <content> element are not part of the flattened tree. > I was unclear. What I meant was that final flattened tree wouldn't be > affected by C not being assigned to the first <content> element (the one > that is a DOM parent of R). Well if it wasn't assigned to that <content> element, e.g. if it was assigned to the second one, then it wouldn't end up being assigned to the _other_ <content> element it is assigned to. Consider if the includes="C" attribute was changed to includes="D" and vice versa. > Again I was unclear sorry. I meant when you remove the binding on Q, the > flattened tree changes. My understanding was that you had to rebuild it, > in particular by redistributing the children of B. You do have to rebuild it, but you don't have to redistribute the children of B, since they are still assigned to the same <content> elements in the shadow tree of the B element. > What I'm realizing (and what you're probably saying) is that since C is > assigned to two content elements, once the binding on Q is removed, you > remove one assignement on C and you end up in the same state as if the > binding on Q had never existed, so you do not need to redistribute the > children of B. Is this correct ? Right. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 20:46:05 UTC