- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:07:47 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Yuvalik Webdesign wrote: > > > > If there's another way of saying what the spec says that is > > technically precise but more understandable, I'd be happy to use it. > > In the meantime, I've added an example to explain it better. > > Would this do: > > If a transparent element were to be replaced by an element equal to its > parent while retaining its content, this content should remain > conformant. That wouldn't catch a case where there was some ordering issue. For example, suppose element <foo> can only have one child <unique>, as well as many other elements. Suppose <bar> is transparent and can be a child of <foo>. Now consider: <foo> <unique id=1/> <bar> <unique id=2/> </bar> </foo> Is this conforming? If we apply your criteria: <foo> <unique id=1/> <foo> <unique id=2/> </foo> </foo> ...then yes, it appears conforming. But if we apply the spec's criteria: <foo> <unique id=1/> <unique id=2/> </foo> ...then we find it is _not_ conforming. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 15:07:47 UTC