- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 06:38:38 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Sergiusz Wolicki wrote: > > I am reading: > > "Contexts in which this element can be used: As the first child of a > details<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/interactive-elements.html#the-details-element>element." > My feeling is that unconnected DOM elements in a script are not really > an HTML document but only its building blocks (bricks). Therefore, any > parent-child relationship required by the spec does not apply until the > fragments are connected together to form an HTML document to be > interpreted (rendered) by a user agent. Therefore, if "if any" applies > to fragments only and not to complete documents, then I feel, it should > not be present in the spec. The specification's requirements apply to all HTML elements, whether in a document or not, whenever scripts are not executing. It also applies to non-conforming documents (e.g. documents where the parent element of a <summary> is not a <details>). > The problem is that if we add "if any", allowing no parent, then we > should also define what <summary> means if there is no parent. The element doesn't mean anything when there's no parent, because if there's no parent, or if the parent is not a <details> element, the only line in the spec that says that the <summary> element represents anything does not apply (because of the "if any"). > In short: "if any" should not be added if it is only meant to allow an > element to be represented separately as DOM in a script, because, if I > understand correctly, such representation is allowed for any HTML > element. If I just omit the "if any", then the specification's definition would make no sense in the case where the <summary> element has no parent or its parent is not a <details> element, as it would refer to an element that does not exist. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2011 23:38:38 UTC