- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:29:33 -0500
- To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Hi Sander, On Aug 8, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Sander Tekelenburg wrote: > > At 15:59 +0200 UTC, on 2007-08-08, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 15:50:22 +0200, Sander Tekelenburg >> <st@isoc.nl> wrote: > > [...] > >>> 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. > > No, it doesn't. It specifically refers to the parent *sectioning* > element. It > says so. > >> And parent (same for ancestor) >> has a well defined meaning in a tree. [...] > > All I'm stating is that (I think) a simpler terminology would be > preferable. > I'm *asking* for an explanation why that simpler terminology > doesn't cover > what is being expressed. But your response is a statement. Without an > explanation that's not very helpful. > > AFAIK "parent" == "nearest ancestor". If not, an explanation or a > pointer to > one would be useful. The confusion here, I think, is that "parent sectioning element of A" can refer to A that must then have a document (element) tree parent that is a sectioning element. You see this at times when the spec describes a TBODY and says the "TBODY element's parent TABLE element". This sound very close to the way you're suggesting we use parent sectioning element, but means a completely different thing.. To use it the way you're suggesting, I think we would first need to introduce the concept of a sectioning tree and differentiate that from the document (element) tree. I'm not saying that wouldn't be possible or even desirable, but it is not necessarily a simplification. FWIW, we already have a distinction between the DOM node tree and the document element tree. Take care, Rob
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 18:29:51 UTC