- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:20:42 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@enst.fr>
- Cc: "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Cyril Concolato wrote: > > > > [the example in section "4.5. The Final Flattened Tree"] > > > > There are two bound elements in that example. One is inside the > > other's shadow tree. What would you final flattened tree look like if > > you didn't assign the element to a <content> element in both shadow > > trees? > > In this particular example, the flattened tree (btw, why do you call it > final ?) wouldn't be different since the second content assigned to C is > not part of it. It's the "final" flattened tree because it's what gets rendered after everything gets processed. Hence, final. I don't really understand what you mean. "C" is part of the final tree. <content> elements never are part of the final flattened tree. If "C" wasn't assigned to a <content> element in the nested binding, I don't understand how it could be part of the flattened tree at all. > What is the answer to the question: > > In the example, if the binding on Q is removed, one would have to > redistribute the nodes for the binding of B ? Nope, the binding on Q doesn't affect B's binding's shadow tree. > I think the answer is yes, that's why when applying the binding for Q, > one can safely unassign C (i.e. unassign the content element parent of > R) because the redistribution of the nodes for the binding of B will > reassign the content that was unassigned. I don't really follow this. > Is this is correct, you don't have to store multiple content elements > per Node ? Exactly how you implement it is an implementation detail. You don't necessarily have to *store* the assignment, since you can derive it (there's no way C could be assigned to the second <content> element in the first shadow tree if it's assigned to a <content> element in the second shadow tree). But conceptually it's still assigned to both. HTH, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 12 January 2007 19:20:51 UTC