Re: [imports] Spec. polishing

Thanks for the feedback!
i addressed some. I aim to address all of them but some are hard to fix
instantly.

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Gabor Krizsanits <gkrizsanits@mozilla.com>
wrote:

> I've heard complains about the readability of the current import draft,
> and I think the best way to improve it, if we all take some time and point
> out the parts that could benefit from some polishing. Instead of filing a
> dozen of tiny bugs, I just went through the spec. again and took some
> notes. Some of these nits are just personal opinion, so I don't expect all
> of them to be addressed but I guess it helps if I mention them. I'm not a
> native English speaker so I have not tried fixing grammar mistakes.
>
> - import referrer section does not reflect the fact that there can be more
> referrer for an import (the referrer -> one of the referrers)

Added some explanation to clarify, amend some working around that.



> - for master document might be easier defined as the one and only root
> node of the import graph
>

Right. re-done in this way.


> - what's up with the defaultView these days? is it shared? is it null? is
> it decided?
>

Updated to make it null. there is no rational way to explain it being
non-null. Closed https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23170.


> - "imported documents don't have a browsing context" - isn't it more
> precise that it's using the master documents browsing context?
>

Maybe. I'm wondering what is the best way to clarify that the import isn't
rendered. That is the section meant to say.
I agree that it isn't clear what it implies. Filed a bug for that.
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26682

- "import dependent" is used before defined
>

Reordered some definition to avoid this.


> - import parent/ancestor : I would define parent first and then extend it
> to ancestor. also worth mentioning that the import link list are the sub
> imports list for clarification
>

This makes sense. Rewrote the sentence in this way.


> - it's extremly hard to see that script execution order is really defined,
> even when I know how it is defined... figuring it out from the current spec
> without any prior knowledge is... challanging to say the least. I think a
> detailed walk through on the graph would be a HUGE help. By that I mean
> explicitly defining the execution order for the example, and also maybe
> illustrating at some stages, what is blocking what.
>

I agree that this is hard to see what should happen. As the script
execution is defined as a part of HTML parsing, it isn't trivial to define
import-specific part in isolated, clear way. As you mentioned, giving some
more example-driven informal illustration would be worth having here. Filed
a bug for tracking this:
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26681



> - missing link to 'simple event'
>

Added a link.


> Gabor
>
>


-- 
morrita