- From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 00:10:00 +1000
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Sander Tekelenburg" <st@isoc.nl>, public-html@w3.org
I agree with Anne for once! "parent" is too tied to "parent element". I don't mind "nearest ancestor" - I think that's standard terminology. It's used in the XPath spec to describe how lang function works, we're consistent with that at least :) On 8/8/07, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:50:22 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl> wrote: > >> That sounds confusing to me because it doesn't actually define the > >> constraints you seem to be working with such that non-sectioning > >> elements are to be ignored in usage of "parent". > > > > I can't follow. How does "parent sectioning element" leave room to think > > it might apply to a non-sectioning parent element? > > Because it refers to the parent in a tree. And parent (same for ancestor) > has a well defined meaning in a tree. So for a tree like: > > <section> > <div> > <section> > > the idea that the "parent sectioning element" for the innermost <section> > refers to the outermost <section> is non-obvious. > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > <http://annevankesteren.nl/> > <http://www.opera.com/> > >
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 14:10:04 UTC