Re: LC comment: Ambiguous "otherwise" step

Mark,

I accept the proposed changes below. -m

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Micah,
>
> Due to the way the meetings have fallen, and WWW2008, this issue is in
> the tracker system, but hasn't been discussed in the group. So whilst
> you can't take my following comments as an 'official' reply, I thought
> I might as well float them by you, since if you're happy with the
> answer we could probably close this pretty quickly on Thursday.
>
>   
>>  Section 5.5 step #4
>>  >/otherwise/, if [parent object] is present, [new subject] is set to that
>> /and/ the [skip element] flag is set to 'true';
>>     
>
> Yes, you're right. The prose now makes it clearer what "set to that"
> means, and also that this is two steps, rather than an 'and'
> condition:
>
> <em>otherwise</em>, if <tref>parent object</tref> is present,
> <tref>new subject</tref> is set to the value of
> <tref>parent object</tref>. Additionally...
>
>
>   
>>  Spec is unclear on what to do if processing gets to this final step and
>> [parent object] is not "present"...
>>     
>
> I suppose that's true, but there are many places where things just
> 'drop through'. The intent is that if nothing sets a flag, then there
> is nothing to do.
>
>   
>> ...and ("present" should be more specific, e.g. "not null").
>>     
>
> I think that's actually less clear. We're checking for the presence or
> absence of an attribute, but without actually defining an algorithm or
> DOM method to do that check. Testing for null seems to me to be
> ambiguous as to whether we're testing the *value* of the attribute or
> its presence.
>
>
>   
>>  Additionally, it seems like an error to set the [skip element] flag in this
>> step. In the case of an element with @property and no other attributes, the
>> element definitely shouldn't be skipped.
>>     
>
> Yes...well spotted. :) So the second part of the prose is:
>
>   Additionally, if <aref>property</aref> is <em>not</em> present then
> the <tref>skip element</tref> flag is
>   set to 'true';
>
> Do you think these two sentences now look like what you need?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2008 22:47:01 UTC