Re: [XBL] Formal definition

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> 
> 4.4.2 Formal definition
> 
> The diagram should be updated to use terms defined in the specification.
> For example, “anonymous node” isn’t defined here.

Unfortunately it's a diagram from back in 2000, and I don't have the 
source anymore. Can anyone volunteer to create a new diagram with the 
right terminology?


>   When the explicit children are distributed and assigned to the content
>   elements in the bound element’s shadow trees, expressions specified
>   using the includes attribute determine which content element a given
>   child is to be placed under.
> 
> s/expressions specified using the includes attribute determine
>  /the includes attribute determines/
> (A throwback to sXBL with XPath expressions, I guess.)

Fixed. Thanks.


>   Each node that is to be distributed (each explicit child node) must be
>   assigned to a content element as follows:
> 
> I don’t think it makes sense to talk about the distrbution of a single
> node (unless that node is split up).

I agree, but the term "distributed" is what is used elsewhere, and it 
would be as confusing to use a different term here as it would be to keep 
"distributed"... Any other ideas?


>   3. If T contains a correct and content element that is not locked…
> 
> s/and//

Fixed.


>   4. Otherwise, if this binding has no correct  inherited element in its
>      shadow tree, then the node is not assigned to a content element,
>      and does not appear in the final flattened tree; stop here.
> 
> s/;/,/

A semicolon is correct here I believe. They are two complete sentences.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'