- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 04:14:16 +1000
- To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Sander Tekelenburg wrote: > Now that I understand what is meant, "nested browsing context" seems a very > good description :) That leaves the challenge of how to phrase it so that > more authors will easily understand it without needing such an elabroate > explanation. I don't think we need to dumb down the language in the spec for authors in this case. It's a spec, not a tutorial. Technical terms are fine, particularly in sections that are aimed more at implementers than authors. It's defined in the "Web browsers" section, which clearly states | This section describes features that apply most directly to Web | browsers. Having said that, unless specified elsewhere, the | requirements defined in this section do apply to all user agents, | whether they are Web browsers or not. http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#web-browsers > "Embedded web page" would work No, it wouldn't because you would have to define what a "web page" is in that context, it's definition would have to be equivalent to that of browsing context. | A browsing context is a collection of one or more Document objects, | and one or more views. | A view is a user agent interface tied to a particular media used for | the presentation of Document objects in some media. A view may be | interactive. Each view is represented by an AbstractView object. Each | view belongs to a browsing context. [DOM2VIEWS] (The window object is the AbstractView in browsers) > Does "browsing context" truly mean something else than "web page"? Yes. > Is "web page" too vague for UA implementors? Yes. > Does the spec already define "web page", No. > and if so, as something else than "browsing context"? Or is it just a matter > of the mindset of the reader that defines which phrase is understandabler. The term "web page" is sufficiently understood for the way it is used in the spec. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 18:14:35 UTC