- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:21:52 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Brad Fults wrote: > > A few things in Section 3.5.2: > > "There is always an element focused; in the absence of other elements > being focused, the document's root element is it." [1] > > This sentence is awkwardly worded and as far as I can tell, "document's > root element" is referenced but not defined anywhere. It might be better > as something like: > > "There is always a single element with focus. If no other element in the > document has focus, focus is given to the document's root element -- in > this case the body element." > > That is assuming, of course, that the body element is indeed the element > that is to receive focus when no other element is focused. I'm not > thrilled with this wording either, but it is an incremental improvement > in comprehensibility. This section got rewritten recently and the above text is no longer there in that form. Let me know if it's still broken in your opinion. > "If no element specifically has focus, this must return the body > element." [2] > > This sentence references "the body element" (with proper linking to its > definition). Is the intention here to distinguish "the body element" > from "the document's root element" mentioned in the previous quote? If > so, it's not clear what the distinction is or why it is present. If not, > these two sentences should use the same terminology. Fixed as part of the earlier changes. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 04:21:52 UTC