W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2009

[whatwg] Transparent Content

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:48:00 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0910140648m72faed45w4e82a508d45f4222@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Yuvalik Webdesign
<postmaster at yuvalik.org> wrote:
>> From: Ian Hickson
>> >
>> > Anyway, Perhaps this will do?
>> >
>> > "If a transparent element were to be removed but its descendants were
>> > kept as they are, the content should remain conformant."
>> >
>> > Or:
>> >
>> > "Any transparent content should be conformant as if its transparent
>> > containing element did not exist."
>>
>> Unfortunately both of these can be interpreted as saying that the
>> element
>> and all its children disappear -- "kept as they are" implies kept as
>> children of the element; "[parent] element did not exist" implies the
>> kids
>> aren't in the tree, etc.
>>
>>
>> > But again, perhaps the added example makes things clear enough. Just
>> > trying to help.
>>
>> Your help is much appreciated. I'm glad the example helps.
>>
>
> I'll give it one more go. ;-)
>
> Perhaps you could leave the existing sentence, but add:
>
> "In short; a transparent element must have the same content model as its parent."
>
> Or something to that effect?

That's still not accurate, though.  ^_^  I mean, it's *correct*, but
it's not a summarization of the existing sentence (which is implied by
"in short").  Ian pointed out how a transparent element can have
children that would match the content model of the parent, but that
wouldn't be correct if simply inserted into the parent (the example
with <unique>).

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 2009 06:48:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:18 UTC