- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 21:22:40 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=29574 Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Default visibility of |[xslt30] Default visibility |accepted components |of accepted components --- Comment #14 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> --- The minutes from 12 May record: MKay summarizes his action item ACTION-2016-04-28-001, which lead to the proposal in Comment#9. He explained why visibility="absent" gives problems but also has holes in the current spec (see Comment#10) and suggests to solve this as mentioned in Comment#12. He summarizes the issue as: 1) Do we mean the component exists without visibility 2) Do we mean the component is absent 3) Do we mean something else MKay walks us through the proposal ABr asks whether we can remove the attribute value "absent" entirely The WG discusses this proposal and there's sympathy for it By dropping it, the whole of visibilities becomes more orthogonal and removes the issue between option (1) and (2) above. MSMcQ asks about the meaning "hidden". Answer (MKay, ABr): it removes it from scope of the current stylesheet, while "private" is visible in the current stylesheet CONCLUSION/DECISION: 1) We drop visibility="absent" 2) We get the same functionality using attribute value "hidden" 3) The default for an abstract component will be "hidden" 4) The wording of XTSE3052 and the paragraph around it needs to be updated to reflect this change ACTION 2016-05-12-2016-003: MKay to implement the proposed solution to drop visibility="absent" and allow abstract components to be hidden -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2016 21:22:42 UTC